Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Vision
To ensure that Hong Kong is served by a fair and efficient public administration which is
committed to accountability, openness and quality of service
Mission
Through independent, objective and impartial investigation, to redress grievances and address
issues arising from maladministration in the public sector and bring about improvement in the
quality and standard of and promote fairness in public administration
Functions
The Ombudsman should serve as the community’s watchdog to ensure that:
Bureaucratic constraints do not interfere with administrative fairness
Public authorities are readily accessible to the public
Abuse of power is prevented
Wrongs are righted
Facts are pointed out when public officers are unjustly accused
Human rights are protected
The public sector continues to improve quality and efficiency
Values
Maintaining impartiality and objectivity in our investigations
Making ourselves accessible and accountable to the public and organisations under our
jurisdiction
According the public and organisations courtesy and respect
Upholding professionalism in the performance of our functions
Performance Measures
Speed of case work
Complainants’ level of satisfaction with case handling
Redress obtained
Recommended improvement measures committed to and/or implemented
Non-repetition of complaints
香港申訴專員用箋 THE OMBUDSMAN, HONG KONG
OUR REF:
Dear Sir,
Yours faithfully,
(Alice Tai)
The Ombudsman
Encl.
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED
31ST MARCH 2007
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT
TO THE OMBUDSMAN
(established in Hong Kong pursuant to The Ombudsman Ordinance)
We have audited the financial statements of The Ombudsman set out on pages 3 to 15, which
comprise the balance sheet as at 31st March 2007, and the statement of income and expenditure,
statement of changes in funds and cash flow statement for the year then ended, and a summary of
significant accounting policies and other explanatory notes.
Auditor’s responsibility
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit and
to report our opinion solely to you in accordance with our agreed terms of engagement, and for no
other purpose. We do not assume responsibility towards or accept liability to any other person for the
contents of this report.
We conducted our audit in accordance with Hong Kong Standards on Auditing issued by the Hong
Kong Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Those standards require that we comply with ethical
requirements and plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance as to whether the
financial statements are free from material misstatement.
An audit involves performing procedures to obtain audit evidence about the amounts and disclosures
in the financial statements. The procedures selected depend on the auditor’s judgement, including
the assessment of the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to
fraud or error. In making those risk assessments, the auditor considers internal controls relevant to
the entity’s preparation and true and fair presentation of the financial statements in order to design
audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an
opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal controls. An audit also includes evaluating the
appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of accounting estimates made by
The Ombudsman, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements.
We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for
our audit opinion.
(1)
INDEPENDENT AUDITOR’S REPORT
TO THE OMBUDSMAN (CONTINUED)
(established in Hong Kong pursuant to The Ombudsman Ordinance)
Opinion
In our opinion, the financial statements give a true and fair view of the state of affairs of The
Ombudsman as at 31st March 2007 and of its surplus and cash flows for the year then ended in
accordance with Hong Kong Financial Reporting Standards.
PricewaterhouseCoopers
Certified Public Accountants
(2)
THE OMBUDSMAN
(All amounts in Hong Kong dollars unless otherwise stated)
BALANCE SHEET
As at 31st March
Note 2007 2006
ASSETS
Non-current assets
Property, plant and equipment 5 22,069,333 22,532,965
Prepaid operating lease 4 67,807,736 69,201,956
89,877,069 91,734,921
Current assets
Deposits and prepayments 613,828 718,450
Interest receivable 3,774,541 1,419,111
Cash at banks and in hand 6 198,139,844 167,189,175
202,528,213 169,326,736
Total assets 292,405,282 261,061,657
FUNDS
Accumulated funds 196,214,224 160,572,157
LIABILITIES
Non-current liabilities
Contract gratuity payable - non-current 2,380,059 3,078,676
Government subventions - non-current 7 85,768,433 88,526,548
88,148,492 91,605,224
Current liabilities
Other payables and accruals 1,295,553 1,183,782
Contract gratuity payable - current 3,777,885 4,774,294
Government subventions - current 7 2,969,128 2,926,200
8,042,566 8,884,276
Total liabilities 96,191,058 100,489,500
Total funds and liabilities 292,405,282 261,061,657
The Ombudsman
(3)
THE OMBUDSMAN
(All amounts in Hong Kong dollars unless otherwise stated)
(4)
THE OMBUDSMAN
(All amounts in Hong Kong dollars unless otherwise stated)
(5)
THE OMBUDSMAN
(All amounts in Hong Kong dollars unless otherwise stated)
(6)
THE OMBUDSMAN
(All amounts in Hong Kong dollars unless otherwise stated)
1 General information
The Ombudsman was established as a corporation sole by statute on 19th December 2001. The
functions of The Ombudsman are prescribed by the Ombudsman Ordinance.
The address of its registered office is 30/F, China Merchants Tower, Shun Tak Centre, 168-200
Connaught Road Central, Hong Kong.
These financial statements are presented in Hong Kong dollars unless otherwise stated. These
financial statements have been approved for issue by The Ombudsman on 18th May 2007.
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with HKFRS requires the use of certain
critical accounting estimates. It also requires management to exercise its judgement in the
process of applying The Ombudsman’s accounting policies. There is no area involving a higher
degree of judgement or complexity, or areas where assumptions and estimates are significant to
the financial statements.
Standard and amendment to an existing standard that are not yet effective and have not been
early adopted by The Ombudsman
The following standard and amendment have been published that are relevant and mandatory
for The Ombudsman’s accounting period commencing from 1st April 2007 but which The
Ombudsman has not early adopted:
HKFRS 7 introduces new disclosures to improve the information about financial instruments. It
requires the disclosure of qualitative and quantitative information about exposure to risks arising
from financial instruments, including specified minimum disclosures about credit risk, liquidity
risk and market risk, including sensitivity analysis to market risk. The amendment to HKAS 1
introduces disclosures about the level of an entity’s capital and how it manages capital. The
Ombudsman has assessed the impact of HKFRS 7 and the amendment to HKAS 1 and
concluded that there is no significant impact on the financial statements other than certain
additional disclosures.
(7)
THE OMBUDSMAN
(All amounts in Hong Kong dollars unless otherwise stated)
Subsequent costs are included in the asset’s carrying amount or recognised as a separate
asset, as appropriate, only when it is probable that future economic benefits associated with
the item will flow to The Ombudsman and the cost of the item can be measured reliably. All
other repairs and maintenance are charged in the statement of income and expenditure during
the financial period in which they are incurred.
Depreciation of leasehold improvements is calculated to write off their costs less accumulated
impairment losses over the unexpired periods of the leases or their expected useful lives to
The Ombudsman, whichever is shorter.
Depreciation of property, plant and equipment is calculated using the straight-line method to
allocate their costs to their residual values over their estimated useful lives, as follows:
– Building 40 years
– Office equipment 5 years
– Office furniture 5 years
– Computer equipment 4 years
– Motor vehicles 5 years
The assets’ residual values and useful lives are reviewed, and adjusted if appropriate, at each
balance sheet date.
An asset’s carrying amount is written down immediately to its recoverable amount if the asset’s
carrying amount is greater than its estimated recoverable amount (Note 2.4).
Gains and losses on disposals are determined by comparing the proceeds with the carrying
amount and are recognised in the statement of income and expenditure.
(8)
THE OMBUDSMAN
(All amounts in Hong Kong dollars unless otherwise stated)
Employee entitlements to sick leave and maternity or paternity leave are not recognised
until the time of leave.
(9)
THE OMBUDSMAN
(All amounts in Hong Kong dollars unless otherwise stated)
2.8 Provisions
Provisions are recognised when The Ombudsman has a present legal or constructive
obligation where, as a result of past events, it is probable that an outflow of resources will be
required to settle the obligation, and the amount has been reliably estimated. Provisions are
not recognised for future operating losses.
Where there are a number of similar obligations, the likelihood that an outflow will be required
in settlement is determined by considering the class of obligations as a whole. A provision
is recognised even if the likelihood of an outflow with respect to any one item included in the
same class of obligations may be small.
Government grants relating to costs are deferred and recognised in the statement of income
and expenditure over the period necessary to match them with the costs that they are intended
to compensate.
Government grants relating to property, plant and equipment are included in non-current
liabilities as deferred government subventions and are credited to the statement of income and
expenditure on a straight-line basis over the expected lives of the related assets.
(10)
THE OMBUDSMAN
(All amounts in Hong Kong dollars unless otherwise stated)
The cost of acquiring leasehold land is accounted for as prepaid operating lease and is
amortised on a straight-line basis over the period of the lease.
The Ombudsman’s activities do not expose it to foreign exchange risk, credit risk and liquidity
risk. For interest-rate risk, except for the short term bank deposits which bear interest at fixed
rates as set out in note 6 below, The Ombudsman has no other significant interest-bearing
assets and liabilities. Accordingly, The Ombudsman’s income and operating cash flows are
substantially independent of changes in market interest rates.
2007 2006
In Hong Kong held on:
Leases of over 50 years 67,807,736 69,201,956
(11)
THE OMBUDSMAN
(All amounts in Hong Kong dollars unless otherwise stated)
Closing net book amount 15,097,562 7,191,154 4,419 150,046 89,783 1 22,532,965
Closing net book amount 14,677,562 6,286,099 9,971 136,894 958,806 1 22,069,333
Note:
During the year, the costs incurred for leasehold improvements were finalised between the supplier and
the Government. Accordingly, The Ombudsman, by reference to the costs finalised by the Architectural
Services Department of Government, has made a price adjustment to reflect revised costs.
(12)
THE OMBUDSMAN
(All amounts in Hong Kong dollars unless otherwise stated)
he average effective interest rate on bank deposits is 4.5% (2006: 4.3%); these deposits have
T
an average maturity of 12 months (2006: 6 months).
7 Government subventions
he amounts represent the funds granted by Government for prepaid operating lease
T
payments, the purchase of buildings and certain leasehold improvements. Subvention income
is recognised on a straight line basis over the period of the lease term or the useful life of the
assets, which are estimated to be 54 years, 40 years and 10 years, respectively.
2007 2006
Government subventions 88,737,561 91,452,748
Current portion of government subventions (2,969,128) (2,926,200)
85,768,433 88,526,548
8 Operating expenses
2007 2006
Auditor’s remuneration 41,000 40,000
Amortisation of prepaid operating lease 1,394,220 1,394,220
Depreciation of property, plant and equipment 1,833,463 1,557,647
Employee benefit expense (Note 9) 46,614,281 43,814,019
Announcement of public interest expense 3,005,195 2,059,651
Operating lease rentals in respect of parking spaces 91,200 104,000
Rates and management fee 1,842,937 1,722,937
Other expenses 2,998,180 2,844,138
(13)
THE OMBUDSMAN
(All amounts in Hong Kong dollars unless otherwise stated)
11 Taxation
The Ombudsman is exempt from taxation in respect of the Inland Revenue Ordinance in
accordance with the Schedule 1A Section 5(1) of the Ombudsman Ordinance.
(14)
THE OMBUDSMAN
(All amounts in Hong Kong dollars unless otherwise stated)
(15)
19th Annual Report • The Ombudsman
Contents
Page
History in Brief 1
Objectives 7
Restrictions 8
Complaint Handling 9
• Mode of Complaint
• Assessment
• Preliminary Inquiries
• Mediation
• Full Investigation
Direct Investigation 11
• Selection of Issues
• DI Assessment
• Investigation Methodology
Implementation of Recommendations 12
Page
Outcome of Inquiries 19
Direct Investigation 20
Recommendations 21
Our Performance 22
Overview 23
Accountability 26
Revived Cases 27
Judicial Review 28
Unreasonable Complaints 28
Jurisdictional Review 29
Overview 29
Page
Staffing 31
Staff Training 32
Promotion Campaign 35
Media Relations 36
Public Information 37
Resource Centre 38
Outreach Talks 40
International Liaison 40
Opinion Survey 42
Page
List of Annexes
List of Tables
Table 1 Caseload 155
Date Event
1988
20 July The Commissioner for Administrative Complaints (COMAC) Bill
was passed by the Legislative Council (LegCo)
1989
1 February The COMAC Ordinance was enacted
First Commissioner Mr. Arthur Garcia, JP assumed office
1993
21 July Legislative review completed, the COMAC (Amendment) Bill
was introduced into LegCo
1994
1 February Second Commissioner Mr. Andrew So, JP assumed office
Date Event
1995
1 March Jurisdiction was extended to investigation into alleged breach of Code
on Access to Information
24-26 October The Commissioner hosted the 15th Australasian and Pacific Ombudsman
Conference and the International Ombudsman Symposium
1996
1 March Non-official Justices of the Peace (JPs) were enlisted in a JPs Assistance
Scheme
12-13 June First Complaint Management Workshop for public officers was organised
1997
1 April Mediation service was launched as an alternative dispute resolution
method
1998
8 May The Ombudsman was elected Secretary to the Asian Ombudsman
Association
1999
1 April Third Ombudsman Ms Alice Tai, JP assumed office
Date Event
2000
27 July The Ombudsman’s Awards were further extended to acknowledge public
officers handling complaints professionally
2001
28 March Telephone complaint service was introduced
2002
6 September Office moved to permanent accommodation at Shun Tak Centre in
Sheung Wan
2003
November Training in mediation was provided for public officers to promote such
service among public organisations
2004
1 April Ms Alice Tai, JP, started her second term (2004 - 2009) as
The Ombudsman
13 December With the departure of the last civil service secondee, this Office was
staffed by a workforce entirely appointed by The Ombudsman under
The Ombudsman Ordinance
Date Event
2005
24 October A “Memorandum of Administrative Arrangements” was signed between
the Director of Administration and The Ombudsman to set out the
general principles and guidelines governing the administrative
arrangements for this Office
Our new strategy of sustaining publicity over a few months has raised public awareness of
our services and pushed complaints received to a record high. Given our performance pledges and
ever-rising public expectations, coping with such a caseload was no mean task. Thanks to the
dedication and diligence of my staff, we managed to complete 5,340 cases with over 97% to target.
Meanwhile, there were some few cases where the responsible authorities, and at times even
public officers, kick against our investigation findings while accepting our recommendations for
improvement to systems, procedures and practices.
Understandably, no one likes to be criticised. I do not set out to do so. Nevertheless, The
Ombudsman has a public duty to establish the facts of a case and is expected to operate fairly,
without fear or favour in the public interest. To this end, my staff and I are at pains to be reasonable
and realistic, conscientious and constructive in our comments and conclusions.
In a free and open society like ours, it is perfectly legitimate for the authorities concerned to
scrutinise The Ombudsman’s investigation findings and to comment on our views. Indeed, we expect
no less. However, my concern is that we should be speaking on the same plane and avoid clouding
the issues, particularly in making public statements. Otherwise, the community would be confused
and worse, the credibility of all concerned might well suffer.
Lately, we have had feedback from a few public officers that we seem to refer even “minor”
complaints to them for inquiries, thus adding to their already heavy workload. My response to them is,
quite simply, this:
• that without bothering the organisations concerned, we complete a good many cases where
the matter is simple, the information readily available or maladministration clearly absent in
the case; but
• that where there is prima facie evidence of maladministration, whether major or relatively
minor, my Office has a duty to process the case and ascertain the facts; and
• that our referral of such cases offers the organisations concerned the opportunity to put their
case in perspective.
Let me assure public organisations and their staff that we see our role as impartial adjudicator,
not advocate for any particular party. We aim to promote a positive culture for complaints, not just
with those in the public sector but also among prospective complainants in our community. Where
complainants are found to be unreasonable or irresponsible, selfish or dishonest, we do not hesitate to
criticise suitably.
In this context, I urge public officers to view complaints as opportunities for review and, where
appropriate, revision for service improvement and enhancement. At the very least, complaints are an
index of community concern.
In my last report, I mentioned our jurisdictional review and am pleased to say that Part One
has been completed and presented to the Administration for consideration. We have re-examined
the criteria for including public bodies in my purview and recommended some additions. We have
revisited the legislative intent for some of the restrictions on my investigative powers. Part Two of
our jurisdictional review, still in progress, is devoted to surveying developments in ombudsmanship
worldwide and the implications those could have on the ombudsman system in Hong Kong.
1.1 As a statutory body established by The 1.5 Even in the absence of complaints, The
Ombudsman Ordinance (“the Ordinance”), Cap Ombudsman may initiate direct investigation
397 of the Laws of Hong Kong, the Office of The into issues of community concern and areas of
Ombudsman is dedicated to monitoring and maladministration where any person may have
improving public administration in Hong Kong. sustained injustice.
With legislative amendment in 2001, our Office
formally severed links with Government systems 1.6 “Maladministration” is defined in the
and devised our own separate procedures Ordinance (see Annex 2).
and practices, for total independence and
impartiality. 1.7 T h e H o n g K o n g P o l i c e F o rc e , t h e
Independent Commission Against Corruption
1.2 Although appointed by the Chief Executive and a few other organisations in Part II of
of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Schedule 1 are not subject to our investigation.
The Ombudsman is not a servant or agent of Nevertheless, The Ombudsman is specifically
Government. Empowered to act in accordance empowered by section 7(1)(b) of the Ordinance
with her own discretion, The Ombudsman’s to investigate their action if not in compliance
decision is final in respect of actions taken in with the Code on Access to Information1.
pursuance of The Ombudsman Ordinance.
However, her decisions are subject to scrutiny
by the Courts through judicial review. Actions Not for Investigation
1.8 T h e O m b u d s m a n ’s p u r v i e w i s n o t
without prohibitions. Section 8, read with
Objectives Schedule 2, of the Ordinance specifies actions
1.3 Our Office strives: not subject to The Ombudsman’s investigation.
Notable examples include legal proceedings or
• to seek out the facts for justice and remedy;
decisions for prosecution, contractual and other
and
commercial transactions, personnel matters
• to improve the quality and efficiency of public and conditions of land grant. A full list of such
administration. prohibitions is at Annex 3.
Restrictions
1.10 S e c t i o n 1 0 ( 1 ) p r e s c r i b e s o t h e r
circumstances under which The Ombudsman
shall not conduct an investigation. For
example, the complainant has had knowledge
of the subject of complaint for over two years,
is anonymous, not being the person aggrieved
or a suitable representative. Such restrictions
are detailed at Annex 4.
Fig. 2.1
Preliminary Inquiries
Type Method
INCH With the complainant’s consent, a simple case is referred to the organisation
concerned for investigation and reply direct to the complainant, with a copy to us. The
Ombudsman may request the organisation to provide specific information, monitors
progress and scrutinises the reply, intervening where it is not satisfactory. In the latter
event, we may take up the case by RAC or full investigation.
RAC Our Office collects key facts relating to a case. If the facts fully explain the matter
under complaint, we will present the findings with observations to the complainant and,
where appropriate, put suggestions to the organisation concerned for remedial action
and improvement measures. If further inquiries are warranted, a full investigation may
be conducted.
Fig. 3.2
Complaints
Year Enquiries
only for us4 including those
copied to us
2
This does not include 508 “complaints to others
copied to us”, previously classified “potential
complaints” (see para. 3.7).
3
This is calculated on the basis of 3,828 complaints
in 2005/06, i.e. total of 4,266 less “potential
complaints” (438).
4
These figures exclude “complaints to others
copied to us” : see Note 2 above.
3.2 Two issues of public concern during the “Serial” cases cause significant fluctuations in
year triggered a flood of “serial” or “serial type” the statistics of “complaints received”.
enquiries and complaints:
3.3 T h e r i s i n g t re n d i n c o m p l a i n t s b y
• Typhoon Prapiroon brought in over 200
email, becoming evident in the past few years,
similar but slightly different complaints
intensified this year. Complaints by email,
against the Hong Kong Observatory;
including most of the serial cases cited above,
• Broadcasting Authority’s criticism of a Radio accounted for over 40% of all complaints
Television Hong Kong programme attracted received. Complaints lodged through the post
over 1,300 complaints, most of them copies has taken second place.
of a standard letter.
Fig. 3.3
In writing -
by complaint form 1,270 722 934 613 586
by letter through post 682 1,634 1,599 1,303 1,002
by fax 978 972 615 863 836
by email 613 742 821 902 2,461
5
Figures in 2006/07 exclude “complaints to others
copied to us”.
6
They comprised 5,606 new cases received and
676 cases carried forward from last year.
3.5 As shown in Fig. 3.4, RAC remains our in the year. We had attempted mediation
commonest mode of inquiry: 87.4% of cases in six other cases in the hope of facilitating
screened in were concluded this way. It is less easier, more amicable and speedier resolution.
formal than full investigation and therefore more However, the parties concerned did not consent.
expeditious and quite effective for handling We will continue to watch out for cases
most cases. Despite our efforts at promoting conducive to this mode.
mediation, only two cases were thus concluded
Fig. 3.4
Mediation 6 7 6 12 2
3.6 In my last report, I analysed the nature of This class of complaints has since been classified
complaints not pursuable. They include cases as cases “not undertaken”, to distinguish them
withdrawn by the complainant or discontinued from those withdrawn or discontinued.
by our Office after inquiry has commenced.
They may also be cases which, under section 3.7 I n f u r t h e r e x a m i n i n g t h i s c l a s s o f
10(2)(d) of the Ordinance, I consider further complaints, we noted among them complaints
inquiry unnecessary for the following reasons: addressed to other organisations and only
copied to us with no request for our action.
• a prima facie case of maladministration is
Hitherto, such cases had been named “potential
not established;
complaints”. These are really not complaints
• the complainant is merely expressing to us, at least not yet. In this light, we have
opinions or seeking assistance; re-named them as “complaints to others copied
• the complainant has refused to consent to to us” (see Annex 2) to reflect their true nature.
disclosure of personal data, necessary for our They are, therefore, excluded from the statistics
inquiries; on complaints to our Office. For the year under
report, such cases numbered 508.
• the organisation concerned is already taking
action on the matter; or
3.8 A breakdown of our caseload for the past 3.10 As for the types of act of maladministration
five years is in Table 1. substantiated, the top five were:
• failure to follow procedures, delay;
Major Causes for Complaint • lack of response to complaint;
3.9 The five causes most mentioned by • ineffective control;
complainants this year were:
• error, wrong decision or advice; and
• error, wrong decision/advice;
• negligence, omissions as well as faulty
• failure to follow procedures, delay; procedures.
• negligence, omissions; “Staff attitude” has ranked low in terms of both
• disparity in treatment, unfairness, selective cause for complaint and act of maladministration
enforcement; and substantiated. This suggests that generally
• ineffective control. speaking, most public servants are regarded as
courteous and helpful towards the clients they
They were the same five as those last year, but
serve. Details are as shown in Fig. 3.5.
the fourth and fifth have switched places.
Fig. 3.5
@
A total of 5,340 were concluded in 2006/07, including cases outside our jurisdiction, restricted or concluded after
preliminary inquiries, mediation and full investigation (see Table 1) but excluding “complaints to others copied to us”.
#
41 allegations were substantiated, substantiated other than alleged or partially substantiated after full investigation
in 2006/07.
3.11 Eight of the departments in the “top a few more than the Water Supplies and the
ten” most complained about were the same Transport Departments, both dropping out of the
as last year (see Table 4), with the Housing list this year.
Department and the Food and Environmental
Hygiene Department heading the league. This
is understandable as they provide services Outcome of Inquiries
directly impacting on almost all facets of 3.12 We conducted full investigation on 71
our daily life. The Hong Kong Observatory, complaints, with 32 or 45.1% substantiated,
normally a rare target, came in fourth mainly partially substantiated and substantiated
because of the complaints drawn in by Typhoon other than alleged (see para. 2.14 of Chapter
Prapiroon. The Leisure and Cultural Services 2). The outcome of our full investigations are
Department marginally came within range, with summarised in Fig. 3.6.
127 complaints concluded during the year,
Fig. 3.6
Substantiated 15 21.1%
Unsubstantiated 39 54.9%
Total 71 100.0%
Fig. 3.7
Inconclusive 12 0.8%
Direct Investigation
3.14 During the year, four direct investigations
and five direct investigation assessments (or
“mini-direct investigations”) were completed.
Two other direct investigations were in progress
at the end of the year. These are detailed in
Fig. 3.8.
Fig. 3.8
Date Subject
19 March 2007 Monitoring of Cases with Statutory Time Limit for Prosecution by
the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department
Date Subject
3.15 Hitherto, our direct investigations have phases on the other aspects, including the
tended to be rather complex and extensive arrangements in internal (school) and external
exercises spanning over quite some time. We (public) examinations. Studies on other support
note that announcement of our findings often services will follow.
attracts wide media and community interest.
Given their value in public education and
understanding of the administration of public Recommendations
services, we will undertake direct investigations 3.17 As our prime purpose is to redress
on a smaller scale (say, in phases) and publish grievances, improve public administration and
their outcome on earlier completion. enhance client service, I make recommendations
where due, on conclusion of full investigations
3.16 In particular, from time to time, where the and even preliminary inquiries.
scope of a topic identified for direct investigation
is too widely encompassing to be undertaken 3.18 As for direct investigations, often
at one go, we study it in more manageable initiated without receiving complaint, my
phases. An example is the direct investigation recommendations invariably aim to improve
on services for children with specific learning public administration in systems, procedures
difficulties. We have just completed our study on and practices.
the administration of the services for assessing
and identifying these children as “phase one” in
a series. We are now proceeding to subsequent
Fig. 3.9
Response Time
Year
Within 5 working days Within 6-10 working days More than
(target : 80%) (target : 20%) 10 working days
Response Time
Year
Within 10 working days Within 11-15 working days More than
(target : 70%) (target : 30%) 15 working days
Response Time
Year
Less than 3 months Within 3-6 months More than
(target : 60%) (target : 40%) 6 months
Fig. 4.1
Revived cases
Decision varied 3 8 11
336
4.16 Some complainants dissatisfied with 4.18 This year, there was one case of judicial
my decisions would complain against individual review sought by a complainant against my
investigation officers, alleging bias, lack of decision. The applicant had lodged a complaint
thoroughness or poor conduct in their inquiries. with us against the Official Receiver’s Office
All such complaints are first considered by for not taking action against a trustee, who
the head of office administration, to determine allegedly had acted inappropriately in handling a
whether they are genuine complaints against bankruptcy case. After conducting preliminary
the conduct of my staff. If so, he will handle inquiries on this complaint, I concluded that the
the complaint independently (see paras. 5.19 - department had handled the complaint against
5.21 of Chapter 5) and report his findings to me. the trustee quite properly and, on that basis, I
However, more often than not, such allegations closed the case. Dissatisfied with my decision,
really arise from dissatisfaction with the findings the complainant applied for judicial review.
or conclusions of our inquiries, in fact my The High Court dismissed the application after
decisions. These complaints are treated as hearing.
requests for review of the case. As investigation
reports are subject to my personal approval,
such allegations are, and must be seen as, Unreasonable Complaints
actually complaints against my decisions, not 4.19 From time to time we receive complaints
my officers. from persons who, although being in the wrong
or even having breached the law, accuse
Government for being unreasonable in taking
Judicial Review action against their wrong deeds. In one case,
4.17 Apart from asking The Ombudsman for the complainant had unlawfully terraced a slope
review, individuals or organisations may also on Government land for private use and then
seek judicial review of my decisions by the court. complained to us when Government found this
As noted by the Chief Justice in his speech at out and fenced off the area.
the ceremonial opening of the Legal Year 2007,
judicial review should not be viewed negatively 4.20 In another case, the complainant had
as a hindrance to government but as providing been approved financial assistance from a
an essential foundation for good governance Government agency and was to collect cheques
under the rule of law. I consider the avenue of periodically. He did so through an agent but
judicial review a particularly significant provision refused to comply with the procedures for
and ultimate safeguard for the integrity of my identity verification. On the first occasion, the
role and function since, in view of my statutory staff member concerned exercised flexibility
independence, my decision on a case is final. and allowed this. On the second occasion, the
complainant demanded the same exceptional
arrangement. The agency staff again tolerated
this and asked the complainant to follow certain
steps. The complainant did not follow the
steps, resulting in some hiccups in the cheque
collection. He then took the exception to be the
rule and alleged inconsistency in the agency’s
handling of his requests.
5.1 This is the sixth year since my Office workforce. Appointment of temporary staff
delinked from Gover nment systems and gives me the flexibility of coping with workload
practices. We have continued to function fluctuations more effectively and economically.
effectively and independently with our own Our temporary resources this year is equivalent
administrative and financial policies as well as to 2.4 full-time regular staff. All of them have
operational processes and procedures. a wealth of experience in public service and
proven ability in administration and management
matters.
Staffing
5.2 This year saw a massive influx of 5.4 Meanwhile, with the general economic
complaints, sustained over many months, revival and a more vibrant job market in Hong
probably due to our new strategy of spanning Kong, my Office has experienced a steady
publicity from June to September to enhance turnover of staff in the past couple of years,
awareness of our mission and services. The particularly at entry levels. In 2006/07, a total
number of incoming complaints from July to of 6 investigation staff and 8 supporting staff
October soared over 400 each month, with a left: some for family or personal reasons,
record high of 783 in August. others obviously for greener pastures. On each
occasion, we have acted promptly to recruit and
5.3 This immense increase in caseload has restore staffing to a level geared for effective
put unprecedented pressure on our investigators operation of the Office. Despite our efforts,
and particularly created bottlenecks in the there were time gaps when we had to wait for
concluding stage. To maintain quality service the new entrants to report for duty. Then, they
and efficient delivery, I have recruited more had to go through a necessary learning period
temporary case officers, both part-time and full- before becoming fully functional.
time, than ever before, to supplement the regular
Fig. 5.1
Staffing Complement
Directorate 4 4 4
Investigation 40 43 45
5.13 Apart from upgrading the expertise of my • Judicial review against The Ombudsman’s
staff, I also offer them opportunities to sharpen decision
their language skills. CSTDI’s web courses on
• Financial Reporting Council Ordinance
the Cyber Centre Plus are available for staff to
refresh their English writing skills at their own • Time management
pace. Chinese writing courses on syntax, style
• Film censorship in the United Kingdom and
and semantic logic were arranged. In addition,
Hong Kong
I also provide Putonghua training for all my
investigation and frontline staff to better equip
them for their daily work. Fig. 5.3
Fig 5.5
Partially Incapable of
Nautre Substantiated Unsubstantiated
Substantiated Determination
Staff Manner
(including delay 1 2 2 3
and negligence)
Work Procedures 3
Both Staff
Manner and 1
Work procedures
Total 12
Fig. 6.1
Fig 6.4
Press Conference
14 September 2006 • Declaration of direct investigation into the monitoring of cases with
statutory time limit for prosecution by the Food and Environmental
Hygiene Department
• Announcement of findings of direct investigation into the
Administration of the Mid-Levels Moratorium
Public Information
Fig. 6.5
6.9 We update our publications from time
to time. This year, our leaflet on “Performance
Pledge” and the booklet on “Tips for Making
a Proper Complaint” have been revised to
provide clearer and up-to-date information
on our functions and responsibilities. These
publications are available in our Resource
Centre, our website and Government District
Offices.
Fig. 6.6
2
1
3 Groups
Total:19 The Ombudsman’s Awards
13 Presentation Ceremony
22
120 Fig. 6.8
140
Visitors
Total:727
445
Department of Health 1
Efficiency Unit 1
Hospital Authority 1
Ombudsman with
Housing Department 1
Departmental Directorate
Immigration Department 2 6.15 This is the second year that I have
Inland Revenue Department 2 met with directorate officers of Government
departments. This year, my meeting with the
Judiciary 1
directorate of the Home Affairs Department
Mandatory Provident Fund 2 was particularly fruitful as all District Officers
Schemes Authority were present. They are well placed to feel
Securities and Futures Commission 1 the pulse of the community and I used the
opportunity to share with them the feedback on
Social Welfare Department 1
issues of community concern. I also underlined
Urban Renewal Authority 1 the importance of positive organisational
culture for effective complaint management.
Water Supplies Department 2
Such exchanges will be arranged with other
departments in future.
Fig. 6.12
6.22 Apart from the Exchange Programme,
we have continued to receive groups from the
Mainland. These groups are briefed by my
senior officers on our jurisdiction and modus
operandi, followed by a free exchange of views
and ideas. This year, we gave talks to 16 groups
comprising 170 participants.
Opinion Survey
6.24 Every three to four years, we conduct
surveys for feedback from the public for service
review and improvement: the last were in 2000
and 2003 respectively. In between, we carry
out internal surveys to collect opinions from
complainants, like that we did in 2004. In 2007,
the Census and Statistics Department will
conduct another thematic household survey. We
have decided to take part at a fee, to gain insight
for better planning and delivery of our services.
The survey is expected to be completed in early
2008.
2. Airport Authority
Complaint
A complaint is a specific allegation of wrong doing, unreasonable action or defective decision which
affects and aggrieves the complainant.
Discontinuation of Complaint
This is the cessation of inquiries into a complaint, under section 7(i) or section 11A of The Ombudsman
Ordinance. This may be for the reasons set out in section 8 (read in conjunction with Schedule 2) or
section 10 of the Ordinance identified after inquiries have commenced or because of such factors as
insufficient information or evidence from complainants and lack of complainants’ consent for access to
their personal data.
Enquiry
An enquiry is a request to this Office for information or advice. It is not yet, but may develop into, a
complaint.
Full Investigation
This is an investigation initiated under section 7(1) of The Ombudsman Ordinance.
Incapable of Determination
This refers to a situation where The Ombudsman feels unable or unwilling to make a conclusive
determination at the end of a full investigation. In effect, The Ombudsman is not prepared to draw
any conclusion on the complaint because the evidence is conflicting, irreconcilable, incomplete or
uncorroborated. This is the equivalent of an “open verdict” in court proceedings.
Investigation
This refers to an investigation under section 7(1) of The Ombudsman Ordinance. It may be a full
investigation into a complaint or a direct investigation without a complaint.
Maladministration
This is defined in section 2 of The Ombudsman Ordinance. Basically, it means poor, inefficient or
improper administration including unreasonable conduct; abuse of power or authority; unreasonable,
unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory procedures and delay; discourtesy and lack of
consideration for a person.
Mediation
This is a voluntary process carried out under section 11B of The Ombudsman Ordinance where the
complainant and representative of the organisation concerned meet to discuss the complaint and to
explore mutually acceptable solutions. Investigators from this Office act as impartial facilitators.
Outside Jurisdiction
This refers to the situation where the action or organization subject to complaint is not within The
Ombudsman’s authority to investigate by reason of section 8 read with Schedule 2 to The Ombudsman
Ordinance.
Preliminary Inquiries
These refer to inquiries conducted under section 11A of The Ombudsman Ordinance to determine
whether a full investigation should be conducted.
Restrictions on Investigation
These are the restrictions on investigation set out in section 10 of The Ombudsman Ordinance.
Withdrawal of Complaint
This is a complainant’s voluntary withdrawal of a complaint already lodged with this Office. However,
depending on the nature or gravity of the allegations, The Ombudsman may decide to continue the
investigation despite the request to withdraw.
5. Personnel matters
9. Actions in relation to Hong Kong Codes on Takeovers and Mergers and Share Repurchases
10. Crime prevention and investigation actions by Hong Kong Police Force or Independent
Commission Against Corruption
1. Complainant having knowledge of subject of complaint for more than two years
6. Statutory right of appeal or remedy by way of legal proceedings (except judicial review) being
available to complainant
(A) Enquiries*
Response Time
More than
Immediate Within 30 minutes
30 minutes
By telephone or in person
15,512 (100%) 0 0
(B) Complaints**
Response Time
Within Within
More than
Initial assessment / 5 working days 6-10 working days
10 working days
acknowledgement (target: 80%) (target: 20%)
** Excluding complaints to others copied to us and cases outside jurisdiction or under restriction.
Response Time
12 (100%) 0
Advisers
* In alphabetical order
Civil Aviation Department Guidelines on permission for people with past offence records
to work in airport shops reviewed to make them more in line with
the Government policy to encourage employment of such people
Food and Environmental Procedural guidelines issued on application for entry warrants
Hygiene Department and gaining entry to private premises, with the difference in
(“FEHD”) nature between a statutory notice for intended entry and a mere
proposal for visit appointment clarified
Social Welfare Department Advice given to non-government organisations for them to put in
place proper guidelines for determining the degree of urgency in
cases requiring service
(b) B
etter arrangements for inter-departmental co-ordination
Home Affairs Department Reminder issued to District Offices on their coordinating role on
(“HAD”) district management matters where no department claims
responsibility, with special emphasis on maintenance of drainage
systems, subject of the complaint in question
HAD/Land Registry (“LR”) Arrangement established for accurate and complete information
on t’ong managers to be provided by LR to HAD to avoid
misunderstanding regarding whether rates exemption is
applicable to a t’ong
Leisure and Cultural Arrangement made with the Integrated Call Centre (“ICC”) of the
Services Department Efficiency Unit to accord priority in referring complaints to LCSD
(“LCSD”) made through the ICC regarding abuse or misuse of public
playgrounds, especially for complaints made after office hours
Agriculture, Fisheries and Guidelines issued on proper procedures for handling complaints
Conservation Department against staff or the department’s action arising from law
(“AFCD”) enforcement operations
Immigration Department Funds obtained, on Imm D’s initiative shortly after The
(“Imm D”) Ombudsman had commenced an inquiry, to upgrade the
hardware system of its customer enquiry hotline service to
shorten the waiting time of enquirers
FEHD District staff are instructed to better equip themselves (e.g. with
binoculars) in identifying the source of nuisance in investigating
complaints of dripping from air conditioners
Transport Department A note included in the application form for International Driving
Permit informing applicants that they need to check with the
overseas authorities concerned if they want to know whether or
not the country in question accepts the Hong Kong Driving
Licence
Water Supplies Department The practice of issuing final bills for outstanding water charges
revised so that the bill also shows the account holder’s name,
thus minimizing the chance of the subsequent registered
consumer unwittingly paying other people’s bill
Complaint received
Screen in
Screened by Assessment Team Processed by Investigation Teams
(by AOMB)
Complaint
Screen out and INCH MED RAC INV
to others
not pursue
copied to us
Issue DIR to
organisation
(approved
by OMB)
Yes No Yes No
Satisfactory Satisfactory
Issue reply to Examine
complainant comments
(approved by OMB) from
organisation
Legend:
Handle by Handle by
AOMB—
RAC/INV INV
Assistant Ombudsman
DIR—
Draft Investigation Report
DOMB —
Deputy Ombudsman Issue reply/INV report
to complainant and
INCH — organisation
Internal Complaint (approved by OMB)
Handling Programme
INV —
Full Investigation Monitor
implementation of
MED —
recommendations
Mediation
OMB —
The Ombudsman
Under section 7(1)(a)(ii) of The Ombudsman Ordinance, The Ombudsman is empowered to initiate
investigations of his own volition, even though no complaint on the matter has been received.
This power enables The Ombudsman to be more proactive in the approach to problems of public
interest and concern. It is particularly useful to:
(a) follow through systemic problems which investigation of a complaint alone may not resolve;
(b) nip problems in the bud by addressing deficiencies in systems and procedures; and
(c) resolve repeated complaints, once and for all, by addressing the fundamental problems which
may not be the subject of complaints, but are believed or suspected to be the underlying
reasons for complaint.
To facilitate consideration of matters for direct investigation, The Ombudsman has established some
general guidelines:
(a) the matter concerns public administration and involve alleged or suspected maladministration
as defined in The Ombudsman Ordinance;
(b) the matter should be of sufficient dimension and complexity, representing the general interest,
desire or expectation of the community, or at least a sector in the community;
(c) individual grievances will normally not be a candidate for direct investigation, as there is no
reason why the individual concerned cannot come lodge a complaint personally;
(d) a complaint will otherwise not be actionable under the restrictions in section 10(1) of The
Ombudsman Ordinance, e.g. annoymous complainant, not the aggrieved person, but the matter
is nevertheless of grave concern to The Ombudsman;
(e) the matter is normally not subject to the jurisdiction of the Court or a tribunal constituted under
any Ordinance or it would not be reasonable to expect the affected person(s) to resort to the
Court or any tribunal for remedy; and
(f) the time is opportune for a direct investigation, weighing against the consequences of not doing
so.
These are no more than guidelines and are by no means exhaustive. Much will depend on the actual
matter or problems.
1994/95
1995/96
1996/97
5. Provision of emergency vehicular access and fire services installations and equipment for public
and private building developments
7. Co-ordination between the Social Welfare Department and the Housing Department in
processing application for housing transfer on social grounds
1997/98
11. Fisheries Development Loan Fund administered by the Agriculture and Fisheries Department
12. Arrangements for the closure of schools due to heavy persistent rain
15. Co-ordination between the Drainage Services Department and the Environmental Protection
Department over the protection of public beaches from being polluted by sewage discharges
16. Charging of management fees in Home Ownership Scheme Estates managed by the Housing
Department
1998/99
19. Recovery of public rental flats under the Home Ownership Scheme, the Private Sector
Participation Scheme and the Home Purchase Loan Scheme by the Housing Department
1999/00
25. Provision and management of private medical and dental clinic services in public housing
estates
26. Regulatory mechanism for the import/export, storage and transportation of used motor vehicles/
cycles and related spare parts
2000/01
27. Regulatory mechanism for local travel agents for inbound tours
28. Selected issues concerning the provision of retraining courses by the Employees Retraining
Board
29. Clearance of Provisional Urban Council tenants and licence holders affected by the Land
Development Corporation’s development projects
31. Procedures for immigration control of persons who present themselves, are found or returned to
immigration check points without proof of identity
2001/02
32. Procedures for handling travellers suspected of using false or otherwise suspect travel
documents
33. Management of construction projects by the Housing Authority and the Housing Department
35. Mechanism for enforcing the prohibition of smoking in no smoking areas and public transport
carriers
2002/03
36. The Education Department’s contingency and relief measures for the secondary school places
allocation exercise 2001
37. Funding of sports programmes by the Hong Kong Sports Development Board
39. Mechanism for handling missing patients in hospitals of the Hospital Authority
41. Role of the Home Affairs Department in facilitating the formation of owners’ corporations
2003/04
44. Assistance provided by the Home Affairs Department to owners and owners’ corporations in
managing and maintaining their buildings
2004/05
47. 2003 Priority arrangements for surplus teachers in aided primary schools
49. Enforcement action on unauthorised building works in New Territories exempted houses
2005/06
2006/07
57. System for Processing Applications for Disability Allowance by the Social Welfare Department
58. Monitoring of Cases with Statutory Time Limit for Prosecution by the Food and Environmental
Hygiene Department
Background
Many parents of children with specific learning difficulties (“SpLD”) are ignorant
about what services are available, who provide them or how and how far they are delivered.
Concerned whether Government has systems and procedures in place to ensure timely
identification of these children and adequate assistance for them, The Ombudsman initiated
a direct investigation.
What is SpLD?
Department of Health
3. Family Health Service conducts routine interviews for all children from birth to
the age of five. Any child suspected of having developmental or learning problems is
referred to the Child Assessment Service for further evaluation. Child Assessment
Service provides multidisciplinary services for children up to age 12 with developmental
problems. Student Health Service provides free annual health assessment for all primary
and secondary school students joining the Service. For suspected cases of SpLD, further
psychosocial health and psychological assessments are conducted.
(a) for students assessed to have mild learning difficulties, the school will determine
the appropriate support services. Students who show no improvement after one
term will be referred to educational psychologists for assessment;
(b) students assessed to have marked learning difficulties are referred to educational
psychologists for further assessment; and
(c) students assessed to have SpLD receive additional funding and professional
support.
5. Teachers separately assess students who have not been assessed by OCT but
suspected to have SpLD.
Prevalence of SpLD
6. Statistics in the past four years show a rising trend of children assessed to have
SpLD:
The available figures may not represent the real prevalence rate of SpLD in Hong Kong.
EMB should, in consultation with DH, liaise with experts and stakeholders in this field to
come to more realistic and accurate data for overall planning and provision of assessment
and support services for children with SpLD, their parents and schools.
Parental Awareness
7. Investigation shows that parents in general lack awareness and knowledge of SpLD,
the assessment services available and authorities for assistance.
8. Educational Psychology Service (“EPS”). EMB has its own educational psychologists
but is progressively outsourcing the EPS. The number of EMB educational psychologists1
has decreased recently and an imbalance of workload, compared with the outsourced EPS,
is observed.
9. Performance Pledge. There are specific time frames in some stages of the
“Assessment through Teaching”. Target time frames for the remaining stages are necessary
to ensure timely services.
1
There were 30 in 2003/04, 27 in 2004/05, 28 in 2005/06, and 27 in 2006/07.
11. Transparency of Process. EMB does not tell parents what, and how, psycho-
educational assessment will be conducted.
DH Assessment Service
Inter-departmental Coordination
13. Clearer Definition of Responsibilities between EMB and DH. EMB leads in
assessing all students from primary one onwards in public sector schools, and DH runs a
comprehensive service for children before school age and has been diagnosing some with
co-morbid condition. Ideally, identification of SpLD should cover all children from preschool
age for early intervention. Clearer definition of responsibilities between EMB and DH will
enable parents and teachers to understand better what, and where, services are available.
14. Assessment Services. EMB and DH hold half-yearly liaison meetings but the scope
of discussion should be extended for closer cooperation and collaboration in the provision
of such services.
15. Collation of Statistics. EMB and DH keep separate statistics on cases assessed to
have SpLD and adopt different counting methods and reporting years.
16. Given the evident commitment and contribution of NGOs, the burden of
responsibilities on EMB and DH can be shared with NGOs for more effective services.
Recommendations
(a) To review the assessment criteria and to come to more realistic and accurate
data on SpLD.
(b) To extend the scope of the liaison meeting between EMB and DH and to align in
statistical compilation.
EMB Action
(e) To set target time frames for all the stages of the “Assessment through Teaching”
process.
(f) To provide, on request, both parents and schools with assessment reports in full
and in terms that can be understood by lay persons.
DH Action
(g) To set a target completion date for assessment by the Student Health Service.
(h) To provide, on request, parents and schools with a detailed assessment report.
(i) To work out clearer definition of responsibilities between EMB and DH.
(j) To examine the feasibility of identifying SpLD among preschool and kindergarten
children.
Background
The Moratorium
(b) for sites under restricted lease, deferment of lease modification which would give
rise to a greater intensity of development; and
(c) for sites under unrestricted lease, use of the powers under the Buildings
Ordinance to prevent more intensive redevelopment.
3. The following bureaux and departments (and their predecessors since 1972) were
involved in the administration of the Moratorium:
(c) Plan D - processing planning applications under Outline Zoning Plans (“OZPs”)
for the Mid-Levels area;
(e) ETWB - overall coordination, including monitoring, assessing and reviewing the
need for the Moratorium; and
4. Despite the Moratorium, the number of residential units in Mid-Levels has continued
to grow, particularly during the period from 1985 to 1996. Eight traffic studies on Mid-
Levels by TD between 1973 and 2005 showed that the traffic condition had never been
satisfactory. The Moratorium has clearly failed its stated objective: the continued building
developments and redevelopments have resulted in a rise in the number of residents and
volume of traffic in Mid-Levels.
Evaluation
6. Only four Government sites were available in Mid-levels: so, the deferment of public
land sale could have little impact. Most private sites in Mid-Levels are under unrestricted
lease and hence lease modification is not necessary for redevelopment. As regards sites
under unrestricted leases, an Appeal Tribunal determination in late 1972 showed that the
Buildings Ordinance could not be used to refuse building development on grounds of
intensity.
8. It would appear that the initiator(s) of the Moratorium were not fully aware of the
inherent limitations mentioned above.
9. BD (and its predecessors) could not apply the Buildings Ordinance and Regulations
to refuse building development on grounds of intensity, but enforced the temporary
statutory restrictions, which helped to control building developments. Plan D, in processing
planning applications in Mid-Levels, had consulted the relevant bureaux and departments
and taken account of the Moratorium. TD had conducted studies to monitor the traffic
situation. These were all efforts in support of the Moratorium.
10. However, Lands D’s approach to lease modification was found to be somewhat
“liberal” or “loose”. It had the net effect of facilitating building development and leading to
more traffic, contrary to the intent of the Moratorium.
11. In a complaint case we studied, Lands D had loosely defined “house” and removed
the height restriction of a site, so that the site meant originally for one “house” could be
developed into a two-tower, ten-storey condominium with many more flats.
Weak Coordination
12. Neither ETWB nor its predecessors have demonstrated the necessary leadership
or initiative by calling for regular assessment or comprehensive review or directing the
departments concerned to implement the Moratorium more stringently and effectively.
Bureaux and departments were left to define its own role and develop its own strategy.
Consequently, the number of residential units has increased significantly, despite the
Moratorium and the belated plot ratio restriction.
13. The need for continuity of responsibility and coordination in implementation has
been overlooked in the multiple restructuring exercises of Government over the years. In
the 1970s, one policy branch had policy responsibility over lands, planning, traffic and
transport matters, with a single operational department, i.e. the Public Works Department
(“PWD”), being the de facto overall coordinator for the implementation of the Moratorium.
Major Government restructuring in 1982 split the land and traffic/transport policies between
different branches and defederalised PWD. This dismantled the central coordination
without providing an effective replacement mechanism.
Conclusions
14. Though well-intentioned, the Moratorium was doomed to fail from the outset due to
inherent limitations, poor planning and weak coordination, insufficient support from some
key players and lack of monitoring.
15. It offers good reference for Government reorganisation, particularly on the need for
continuity of responsibility and coordination in the implementation of major policies.
Recommendations
Effectiveness
(a) The bureaux and departments concerned should consider what measures are
necessary to supplement, strengthen or replace the Moratorium.
(i) review the need, or otherwise, for the continuation of the Moratorium; and
(ii) if such need was established, give clear guidelines to the bureaux and
departments concerned for proper implementation and close cooperation in
coordination.
Transparency
(d) The bureaux and departments concerned should keep the public posted on
developments or changes.
Background
FEHD was responsible for enforcing legislation on food safety and environmental
hygiene. Prosecution of such offences had to be brought within a statutory time limit of six
months.
Prosecution Procedures
2. When an action officer found that an offence had been committed, he would prepare
a summons file for reporting to the section head at the rank of Senior Health Inspector
(“SHI(District) 2”). SHI(District) would vet the summons file to ensure sufficient prima
facie evidence for prosecution and forward it to the Prosecution Section in Headquarters.
SHI(Prosecution) would double check the evidence and then a clerical staff would input the
data into the Judiciary’s Case and Summons Management System for issue of summons.
3. A case exceeding the statutory time limit required approval from a Chief Health
Inspector to be dropped. For cases arising from complaints, SHI(District) would inform the
complainants of the outcome.
4. Over the past three years, 33 summonses were time-barred for the following
reasons:
Reasons Summonses
Mistake 3
Misplacement of file 2
Delay 12
(a) a communication gap existed between the Prosecution Section and district staff;
(c) in two cases, staff concerned covered up mistakes, i.e. misplaced files, by telling
the complainant partial truth or even a lie;
6. Timely and proper management of cases was crucial to effective and efficient
discharge of duty for the administration of justice. We considered that directorate staff
should have an overview of the situation, particularly regarding withdrawal of prosecution.
2
For simplicity, SHI(District) also denotes SHI of the Food Surveillance and Complaint Section.
7. In enforcing the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance and various
regulations, FEHD safeguarded food hygiene and public health for the community. Even a
few slips might cause untold damage to food safety and affect public confidence. Rigorous
vigilance was of critical importance.
Recommendations
(a) To review the coordination between District operations and Prosecution Section.
(c) To submit regular returns on prosecution which did not proceed (for whatever
reason) for directorate scrutiny.
(d) To consider amending the law on the time allowed for prosecuting offences in
relation to unauthorised alteration.
(e) To alert the Government Laboratory to the need for tests for urgent cases and
check progress to keep abreast of the time-bar date.
9. FEHD accepted all our recommendations and even initiated some improvement
measures of their own during our inquiries.
Background
In the wake of media reports about cases of overpayment, The Ombudsman initiated
a direct investigation into SWD’s system for processing applications for Disability Allowance
(“DA”).
DA Scheme
2. The DA scheme provides financial assistance for persons certified by the Director of
Health or the Chief Executive of the Hospital Authority (“Hosp A”) to be “severely disabled”.
3. There are two types of DA: Higher Disability Allowance (“HDA”) and Normal Disability
Allowance (“NDA”) at $2,250 and $1,125 respectively per month. For HDA, applicants
must be:
Application Procedures
Explanatory Materials
5. Over the years, SWD has provided some explanatory materials to help applicants
understand the eligibility criteria and application procedures:
Case Reviews
7. In case reviews, recipients are required to report any change in circumstances which
may affect their eligibility. The frequency of review is as follows:
Cross-checking Arrangements
8. To detect unreported changes in recipients’ circumstances that may affect their
continuing eligibility, cross-checking arrangements with the Immigration Department and
Correctional Services Department and other offices within SWD have been introduced
over the years. Cross-checking of hospitalisation records with Hosp A was introduced in
2001 and that of records of boarding in special schools with the Education and Manpower
Bureau (“EMB”), in 2005.
Random Checks
9. Random checks are conducted biennially on 10% of NDA cases involving recipients
aged 70 or above; but none on other cases.
Overpayment
10. DA is paid in advance. HDA overpayment arises mainly from recipients’ unreported
or undetected admission into “Government or subvented residential institutions”.
11. Between 2001/02 and 2005/06, there were 6,132 cases* detected, amounting to $21.2
million. These cases represent 8.44% of the total HDA caseload (72,686 cases) and 1.09%
of the total HDA expenditure ($1,944.3 million). (*Note: SWD commented that this figure
included multiple instances of overpayment to the same recipients, e.g. due to frequent and
repeated admissions to hospital.)
Repayment
12. Regardless of the cause of overpayment, SWD seeks to recover the overpaid
allowance from the recipients, while avoiding undue financial hardship to them.
13. Separately, under Government’s Financial and Accounting Regulations, officers who
approve payments which should not have been authorised may be personally liable to
surcharge.
17. However, the Social Security Allowance Pamphlet lacked a clear definition of the
institutions within the meaning of the term. This was not clarified until June 2005.
18. It was also not made clear in application/review forms until August 2005 that such
institutions include EMB-subsidised boarding schools.
19. The Manual did not require staff to explain the meaning of “Government or
subvented residential institution”. It did not mention that such institutions included EMB-
subsidised boarding special schools. Our case studies revealed that records as to what
information staff had explained to applicants and recipients were scanty, incomplete or
even non-existent.
20. The Manual did not inform IOs how and where to check whether or not an institution
falls within “Government or subvented residential institutions”.
21. The Manual was also not clear on requiring or reminding staff to ask applicants and
recipients specifically on the circumstances directly relevant to their eligibility. In our case
studies, we found the staff to have failed to focus on or verify recipients’ boarding status
with subsidised special schools. Wrong payment of HDA resulted.
22. Given the large number of recipients and the data-matching mechanisms in place,
we considered the case review mechanism acceptable.
24. No random checks were conducted on NDA cases involving recipients aged below
70 and HDA cases. We considered some random checks desirable.
Repayment
25. Apparently, SWD had made little attempt to trace the cause(s) of overpayment or the
causes of errors or irregularities. There were obvious contradictions and deficiencies in its
file records and recipients’ statements.
26. We supported SWD’s recovery of overpayment in order to account properly for the
use of public funds. We also agreed that SWD should work out repayment arrangements
so as to avoid financial hardship to the recipients concerned. However, we asked SWD
to consider evidence brought to its attention to ensure that individual cases were resolved
fairly and equitably.
27. SWD should observe the Financial and Accounting Regulations and, where
appropriate, surcharge officers who had approved payments that should not have been
authorised.
Recommendations
(a) To publicise the conditions of the scheme to remind applicants and recipients of
their obligation to provide full and truthful information as well as possible legal
implications for non-compliance.
(c) To require staff to record in a standardised and detailed manner the information
that they are obliged to explain to applicants and recipients in application
interviews or case reviews.
(d) To inform staff how and where to look for up-to-date information on Government
or subvented residential institutions.
(e) To revise the Manual to guide staff how to make follow-up enquiries for
ascertaining any changes of circumstances affecting recipients’ eligibility.
(g) To consider conducting random checks on HDA cases and NDA cases involving
recipients aged below 70.
Background
Since July 2001, the Building Safety Loan Scheme (“BSLS”) had been implemented
to provide loans to owners of private buildings for improving their safety and maintenance.
Noting media reports on debris falling off old buildings, The Ombudsman was concerned
over the efficiency and effectiveness of BSLS and initiated this direct investigation
assessment.
Publicity Efforts
3. Having kept a watching brief from March 2005 to November 2006, we noted a
steady increase in the number of cases and in the amount of loans approved:
These figures indicated increase in public awareness of BSLS. In the circumstances, The
Ombudsman decided to conclude the study.
Certain areas of Sheung Wan are low-lying and become flooded during high tide with
heavy rain. Since 3 April 2006, DSD has launched an interim service known as Flood Watch
to forewarn residents and shopkeepers of possible flooding. In the wake of a false alarm
on 24 April 2006, The Ombudsman was concerned over the possibility of failure to issue
timely warning and initiated this direct investigation assessment.
2. On 16 July 2006, heavy rain flooded the area but Flood Watch was not triggered
because the tide level was not high enough.
Improvements
3. The false alarm in April had been caused by a computer program error, which was
rectified the very next day. As for the incident in July, DSD subsequently consulted five
trade associations representing the shops in the area and decided that Flood Watch would
issue warning when a Rainstorm Warning Signal was hoisted, regardless of tide level.
4. For the long term, DSD was constructing stormwater intercepting drains and a
pumping station for completion in 2009.
5. Following the unhappy experience of the two incidents, DSD consulted concerned
parties and reviewed the arrangement. This was a sensible move.
6. Flood Watch was well-intentioned as a measure for interim relief to minimise loss
suffered by residents and shopkeepers from flooding. However, it needed better remedy
and DSD was undertaking long-term drainage improvement to rectify the situation.
7. Given DSD’s proactive efforts, The Ombudsman decided not to initiate a full-fledged
direct investigation. We would monitor developments.
2. Concerned whether effective measures were in place to regulate such displays, The
Ombudsman initiated this direct investigation assessment.
Management Scheme
3. District Lands Offices (“DLOs”) of Lands D processed applications and issued written
permission for non-commercial displays of Legislative and District Councillors, Government
departments and non-profit making bodies at designated spots on Government land under
a management scheme. Such permission carried restrictions and conditions on display
size and content of the materials, their secure installation and timely removal and road
safety aspects.
Joint Operations
(f) the amount of costs recovered was far too small for the resources and staff
efforts involved: viz with 6,723,540 items of unauthorised publicity materials
removed and $29,000 recovered in 2003/04; and 7,184,736 items removed with
$275,000 recovered in 2004/05.
6. As Lands D and FEHD had taken steps to tackle the problem, The Ombudsman
considered a direct investigation not warranted. Nevertheless, The Ombudsman
recommended that Lands D and FEHD should:
(a) consider setting a cap on the number of designated spots for non-commercial
displays;
(c) consider the requirement for the use of durable or standardised materials for
displays;
(g) maintain separate statistics for removal and cost recovery actions;
7. Lands D and FEHD accepted our suggestions. This Office would monitor
implementation of the suggestions.
Background
The Senior Citizen Residences Scheme operated by HKHS is a pilot initiative for
middle-income elderly persons. There are two such estates, one in Tseung Kwan O and the
other in Ngau Tau Kok. Media reports in December 2005 alleged that apart from payment
of entry contribution, tenants had to bear the maintenance costs of their units and pay high
fees for various services. The Ombudsman was thus concerned whether measures are in
place to inform prospective tenants properly of their obligations.
The Scheme
No monthly rental is payable. The tenant pays an entry contribution fee in return for
a life-long lease. Upon the tenants’ death or voluntary termination of the lease,
the tenure will revert to HKHS, with the residual amount refunded to the tenant or
his/her estate.
“One-stop Service”
The tenant enjoys a range of services covering property management, basic care
and optional features. The management agent of the estate provides basic care to
tenants at a charge.
“User-pays” Principle
3. The Scheme, based on the “user-pays” principle, clearly aims to provide a form
of tenancy fundamentally different from the usual public rental housing and residence in
elderly homes. However, partly due to its novelty, HKHS must make extra efforts to spell
out clearly what the Scheme entails, especially in terms of payments.
4. On Open Days, HKHS provides prospective tenants with a fact sheet in Chinese on
the facilities and services available and types of charges payable. Staff also explain salient
points of the Residential Lease on flat selection and during Orientation Days. However, we
found that the explanatory materials mentioned the “user-pays” principle only briefly and
nothing about tenants’ obligations for maintenance and repairs.
5. We considered that the issue could easily be resolved by providing fuller details
of essential information to tenants and prospective tenants. In the circumstances, The
Ombudsman decided not to initiate a direct investigation. However, we recommended that
HKHS:
(a) revise its application guide and fact sheet to set out comprehensively and clearly
the “user-pays” principle and tenants’ obligations; and
(b) publish guidelines and formulate procedures for staff on how to explain these
matters to prospective tenants.
6. HKHS has revised the application guide. It will ensure that all prospective tenants
understand their obligations.
The complainant applied for a loan under SFAA’s Local Student Finance Scheme
(“LSFS”) in 2000 for further studies. Upon completion of his course in 2002, he did not
repay the loan. However, it was not until 2006 that SFAA called him to demand repayment
with surcharge. The complainant considered SFAA to have been inflexible and inefficient in
recovering the loan.
Borrower’s Obligations
2. The “Notice of Offer of Financial Assistance under the Local Student Finance
Scheme” requires the recipient of a loan to notify SFAA on moving to a new address before
fully repaying the loan and interest. Non-receipt of a demand note does not exempt the
recipient from repayment. For late repayment by seven days or more, a 5% surcharge
would be levied on the outstanding instalment.
3. The complainant did not notify SFAA after he had moved his home but the three
demand notes regarding three instalments of the loan sent to his old address were never
returned. As the loan remained outstanding, SFAA issued to the complainant and his
indemnifier three reminders in July, August and September 2003. However, neither of them
responded.
Inadequate Staff
4. However, because of inadequate staff, SFAA had to give priority to those cases of
default that involved larger amounts of money. As a relatively small amount was involved,
this case was put aside. SFAA staff successfully contacted the complainant by telephone
in mid-June 2006 and demanded one-off settlement of the loan together with a 5%
surcharge for late repayment.
Our Recommendations
5. This Office recommended that SFAA should deploy enough staff and, where
appropriate, recruit additional staff to handle properly cases where the loans have been
long overdue and larger amount of money are involved. Public education and publicity
should also be stepped up to remind recipients of their obligation for timely repayment
and the consequences of default on repayment, such as the levy of a surcharge or the
possibility of prosecution.
6. SFAA accepted and implemented the above suggestions. The guidance notes,
application forms and information leaflets on LSFS have been revised and website
information updated to include a paragraph on the possible legal consequences of non-
repayment of loans.
A case of delay
The Complaint
Vaginal Search
2. Officer A denied having conducted the vaginal search: as she had learned of the
complainant’s virginity from medical records, she only looked at the outer area of the latter’s
vagina and performed rectal search on her.
3. The resident doctor, having examined the complainant three days later, also
concluded that there was no evidence of forced penetration into her vagina or evidence
of torn hymen, as none was seen. He rejected the complainant’s request for hymen
inspection at an outside hospital, stating that referrals other than medical emergencies had
to be made by the management of the institution.
4. CSD considered that evidence to hand did not support the complainant’s allegation.
However, the Department admitted that the staff members involved should have been more
sensitive to her concern and brought it to the attention of senior management earlier.
Urinary Catheterisation
procedure. She, therefore, advised the complainant to drink more water instead. Officer
A denied that she had been assisted by any inmate during the examination, or that the
complainant had screamed.
6. The Complaints Investigation Unit of CSD had interviewed the other inmates who
were around. All indicated that they were not aware of the alleged incident.
8. This Office considered that there had indeed been a serious delay in attending to the
complainant’s request for independent forensic examination of her alleged vaginal injury.
Owing to the lapse of time, it was impossible to collect evidence to verify her allegation.
10. As inmates might not be aware of their rights and obligations, The Ombudsman
suggested that CSD display notices and/or distribute leaflets on the relevant procedures,
exemption criteria and appeal channels in all waiting areas for body search.
11. This Office also suggested that, in normal circumstances, CSD simply order inmates
to drink plenty of water to induce urination, instead of performing catheterisation on them.
The Complaint
The complainant alleged that EDLB had failed to update the safety standards in
the Toys and Children’s Products Safety Ordinance (“the Ordinance”), thus making traders
liable to prosecution.
2. EDLB explained that since the enactment of the Ordinance in 1992, the
Administration had updated the safety standards four times by notices in the Gazette. In
general, new safety standards promulgated by international standards organisations would
not be introduced into Hong Kong immediately. EDLB would first consult the industry and
relevant bodies and conduct a detailed assessment. In 2003, after such consultation, EDLB
proposed to the Legislative Council amendments to the principal ordinance and various
safety standards.
Legislative Process
3. Depending on their complexity and the impact on the industry, such amendments
had previously taken eight months to two and a half years. However, this time, the process
had yet to be completed after more than three years. Hence, EDLB intended to update
the safety standards first by notice in the Gazette and simultaneously accelerating the
legislative processes. The Bureau expected to complete the updating in the first half of 2007.
Transitional Arrangements
4. Meanwhile, the Customs and Excise Department (“C&ED”), responsible for enforcing
the Ordinance, announced transitional arrangements to ease the worries of the industry. If
products complied with the latest standards without compromising safety, C&ED would
give such cases careful consideration and seek advice from the Department of Justice,
instead of taking enforcement action automatically.
Our Comments
5. The Ombudsman considered it unsatisfactory for EDLB to take more than three
years to update the safety standards. The Bureau was expected to speed up its processing
in future to enhance the business environment.
A case of delay
The sponsoring body of a primary school (“School T”) complained against EMB not
assigning its primary one places for students from an adjacent school net, rejecting its
proposal to operate a private primary one class and other related unreasonable acts.
2. The policy is that if a school net has insufficient primary one places, EMB would
assign to that net places from schools in adjacent nets with surplus places. In the 2002/03
and 2004/05 school years, schools in the net adjacent to School T did not have sufficient
primary one places, while School T had a surplus. At that time, EMB had assigned places
from School T to the adjacent net. However, in 2003/04 and 2005/06, schools in the
adjacent net had sufficient primary one places. Assignment of places from School T was,
therefore, not necessary. The complainant felt aggrieved that EMB had been manipulating
the school nets, merging and separating them at will, thus rendering its school unable to
plan for timely student enrolment.
3. EMB explained that the demand for primary one places varied from year to year.
Assigning places was, therefore, not a permanent arrangement. The Bureau would consult
the schools involved every time and places would be assigned only with the schools’
agreement. Given the tight schedule, EMB would act on verbal confirmation from schools.
No written record would be issued or made. In the present case, EMB maintained that
it had telephoned School T in 2002/03 and 2004/05 and obtained the principal’s verbal
agreement for places to be assigned. However, School T denied this.
4. In the absence of independent evidence, this Office could not verify the facts. Yet,
it was clear that the absence of any written record on the verbal consultation or agreement
was not a proper practice.
5. The complainant said that while advising School T to come under the Direct Subsidy
Scheme, the Bureau had questioned the quality of the school and verbally rejected its
application for operating a private primary one class. EMB explained that the proposal
lacked focus for improvement. The Bureau, therefore, considered School T not equipped
enough to operate a private primary one class of good quality.
6. As EMB’s decision was a professional judgement, this Office would not comment
on it.
7. When School T enquired about joining the Direct Subsidy Scheme, a member of
EMB immediately rejected its application verbally. The Bureau explained that the staff
member involved did not reject School T’s application but had given professional advice
and detailed explanation to the principal. As EMB’s version differed from that of the
complainant and there was no independent evidence, we could not comment.
Privacy of School
8. The complainant alleged that EMB had given School T’s proposal for operating a
private primary one class to a newspaper columnist and thus infringed on the privacy of
the school. After examining the newspaper article, we found that no school name was
mentioned. There was no evidence that EMB had infringed on the privacy of School T.
Final Remark
9. The Ombudsman suggested that EMB review the procedures for assigning places
and formulate clear guidelines to remind staff to keep proper records of the results of verbal
consultation. Verbal agreement should be followed by letter soon afterwards to confirm the
arrangement. EMB accepted and implemented the suggestions.
The Complaint
The complainant alleged that without reason, EMB had suddenly cut the Secondary
1 (“S1”) places of English-medium schools in “other districts” originally allocated to her
daughter’s school net in the coming school year. This reduced the chances of her being
admitted to an English-medium school.
Allocation of S1 Places
2. Under the Secondary School Places Allocation (“SSPA”) System, each year EMB
would arrange for Primary 6 (“P6”) students to go on to secondary education in their own
districts as far as possible. Should S1 places for Central Allocation be short in any district,
EMB would reallocate surplus places from nearby districts to meet the demand. In this
context, places in some secondary schools of “other districts” would supplement those
in the district with the shortfall and be included in the latter school net. However, the
secondary schools to be included from “other districts” and the number of places to be
reallocated would vary from year to year depending on the actual situation.
Uncertainty of Demands
3. Under the existing procedures, each primary school has to inform EMB the personal
particulars of its P6 students at the beginning of a school year and secondary schools have
to estimate their number of S1 classes and places to be offered in the next school year.
This is to enable EMB to project the overall demand and supply of S1 places in all school
nets.
4. However, it is just a preliminary assessment and would not necessarily reflect the
actual situation of a school net at the Central Allocation stage. EMB has to wait until
March each year to make a more accurate projection of the actual demand on the basis of
data collected after the deadline for applications for “cross-net” allocation and disposal of
Discretionary Places since December. Thus, EMB could not possibly confirm the changes
in the number of places at the beginning of each SSPA cycle. It is not until March that
EMB could confirm the approved number of S1 classes in the next school year to start any
reallocation necessary.
5. In late April each year, EMB would formally distribute the S1 Choice of Schools Form
together with the Secondary School List to parents of P6 students participating in SSPA.
6. As some parents might not realise that the schools or number of SI places offered in
“other districts” would vary from year to year, EMB would explain more clearly to parents in
its future briefing sessions and notices on SSPA.
7. Since parents wish to know about reallocation as early as possible, EMB would
expedite disclosing such information to students and parents so that they are aware of
the overall situation before receiving the Secondary School List in April. Meanwhile, EMB
would also review the 18 secondary school nets, which had been adopted for many years,
inter alia to study the feasibility of expanding or merging school nets to give parents more
choices of schools.
No Maladministration
8. The Ombudsman found that EMB had clearly stated that the number of schools in
“other districts” might vary from year to year subject to the actual supply and demand of
S1 places in individual school nets. EMB had processed the allocation in accordance with
established policies and procedures. There was no maladministration.
The Complaint
A transport workers’ union alleged that ETWB, EMSD, EPD and TD had failed
to regulate effectively the operation of dedicated liquefied petroleum gas (“LPG”) filling
stations and to ensure adequate LPG filling service at stable prices.
2. Since 2000, a number of sites with waiver of premium had been awarded to
contractors through tenders for the provision of dedicated LPG filling stations. ETWB was
responsible for policy matters whilst EMSD was responsible for enforcing the contract
terms and conditions and supervising the design, construction, operation and maintenance
of dedicated LPG stations. EMSD was also responsible for collecting data to determine the
ceiling prices at those stations on the basis of the pricing formula specified in the contracts.
3. As international LPG prices had been relatively stable in the past, it was provided
in the contracts that the ceiling prices at dedicated LPG stations would be adjusted once
every six months on the basis of international LPG prices in the preceding six months.
Nevertheless, the contracts also provided that the Administration and contractors could
review the frequency of such adjustment.
4. Between September 2005 and February 2006, international LPG prices soared
drastically. Non-dedicated LPG stations quickly increased their prices whilst the dedicated
ones had to wait until the next adjustment before the ceiling prices could be raised. As
a result, prices at dedicated LPG stations were cheaper by 70 to 90 cents per litre. The
demand at dedicated stations rose so rapidly that it exceeded the contractors’ supply.
Thus resulted in long queues of vehicles waiting for gas filling.
5. Against this background, the Administration decided after review that from
1 February 2006, the ceiling prices at dedicated LPG stations would be adjusted once a
month. This narrowed price gap between the dedicated and non-dedicated LPG stations
and the “long queues of vehicles waiting for gas filling” disappeared.
Our Comments
6. The long queues of vehicles at dedicated LPG stations were not because of
ineffective regulation but rather drastic increase in international LPG prices. However, as
prices at dedicated stations could not be adjusted quickly, gas there became much cheaper
relatively and so demand far exceeded the supply. In this connection, the Administration
had subsequently increased the frequency of price adjustment to allow dedicated stations
to follow changes in the market more closely. This should rectify the imbalance in supply
and demand.
Operating a cake shop under franchise, the complainant had obtained a provisional
food factory licence valid for six months, by the end of which he should have obtained a full
licence upon meeting all licensing requirements.
2. For the purpose of issuing the full licence, FEHD staff inspected his shop several
times and asked him to rectify various problems there. When the provisional licence
was due to expire in less than a month, he was told to remove a pre-existing “step
encroachment” at the shop front before he would be issued a full licence. Considering it
difficult to complete the works before the deadline, he decided to close his shop.
4. In the course of processing the complainant’s application, FEHD staff inspected the
subject premises several times and found that all licensing requirements for the issue of a
full food factory licence had been complied with. However, during the final inspection, a
more senior officer spotted a step at the shop front and suspected it to be an UBWs.
5. The complainant was informed on the spot and the matter was referred to the
Buildings Department (“BD”) for urgent comments. BD inspection subsequently detected
that in addition to the step encroachment, there was also an unauthorised canvas canopy.
BD, therefore, objected to the issue of a licence as these illegal features posed a risk to
public safety. The complainant then applied to FEHD and BD respectively for renewal of
the provisional licence and exemption from compliance with the removal requirements.
Both departments turned down his request and he eventually withdrew his application for a
full licence.
6. FEHD acknowledged that staff had failed to detect the step encroachment earlier and
that there had been a previous application for a general restaurant licence at the premises
when BD had also required removal of the step. In this connection, FEHD introduced a
new licensing policy to address the problem of UBWs in food premises. With effect from
18 April 2006, applicants would be required to submit certification by an authorised person
or a registered structural engineer that the premises are free of UBWs. Otherwise, FEHD
would not issue a licence.
A case of omission
building caused noise and hot air nuisance. He had complained to FEHD and HAD several
times. However, as both departments delayed in handling the case, the problem persisted.
2. The complainant alleged dereliction of duty on the part of FEHD licensing staff,
as the restaurant had been allowed to install the A/C unit on the external wall. When
the restaurant operator failed to observe the requirement to dismantle the unit, FEHD
staff shifted the responsibility to other departments. Meanwhile, the complainant was
dissatisfied with the temperature test taken in his flat and the Department’s failure to follow
up actively his complaint against the restaurant for causing obstruction to the pavement.
3. The complainant also considered HAD to have failed in its duty to assist the owners
and Owners’ Corporation (“OC”) of his building in resolving the building management
problem. Its staff had delayed handling his complaint and influenced the OC’s decision.
4. This Office considered FEHD to have taken appropriate action on the complaint
about hot air and noise nuisance. Each time its investigation was completed, staff would
inform the complainant of the findings. There was no maladministration in its handling
process.
5. As regards the alleged dereliction of duty, we found that the staff concerned had
never approved the installation of the A/C unit and committed no maladministration in
issuing the restaurant licence. He had also properly followed up the complaint. However,
as the relocation of the A/C condenser involved the decisions of several departments as
well as the OC, this had led the complainant into believing that FEHD was shirking its
responsibility.
6. With regard to the allegation that the temperature test conducted in his flat was
inaccurate, it fell within the FEHD’s professional judgement and not an administrative matter
within our jurisdiction. We would not comment on this. Moreover, FEHD had instituted
prosecution against the restaurant operator twice for causing obstruction to the pavement.
7. As for the allegation against HAD, this Office considered that the Department had
specifically followed up the complaint in accordance with the relevant legislation. It had
played its role as coordinator to provide appropriate assistance while the staff concerned
had duly performed his duty. The restaurant operator had twice altered the exhaust unit of
the A/C condenser to meet the requirements of FEHD and to reduce the nuisance to the
complainant. As the OC opposed the position for relocating the condenser, negotiation
had to start afresh for a consensus. That might have led the complainant into believing that
HAD had influenced the OC’s decision and delayed in handling the case.
The Complaint
A company had successfully bid for some goods on GLD auction. It immediately
resold the items to the complainant. When the complainant went to collect them from GLD
with the original GLD Release Note and the company’s authorisation letter, GLD staff found
that the English and Chinese descriptions of the goods did not tally. GLD, therefore, did
not release the goods .
2. Afterwards, GLD improperly released the goods to the company instead. The
complainant felt aggrieved as he was not given goods for which he had paid and had the
original Release Note as well as an authorisation letter.
3. GLD explained that its contractual relationship was with the company, which had
won the bid. Any relationship between the company and the complainant had nothing to
do with Government. When the company asked for the goods but was unable to produce
the Release Note, GLD issued it with a replacement Release Note and subsequently the
goods.
Impropriety Established
4. This Office considers that if a person is able to produce the original GLD Release
Note and an authorisation letter from the successful bidder, GLD is obliged to release
the goods to that person. In this case, before issuing a replacement Release Note to
the company, GLD had already learned about its transaction with the complainant. The
Department also knew that the original Release Note was being held by the latter. It was,
therefore, unreasonable of GLD to issue a “replacement” Release Note and then to release
the goods to the company instead.
The Complaint
The complainant alleged that a District Office (“DO”) under HAD had delayed
handling his complaint against the Management Committee (“MC”) of the Owners’
Corporation (“OC”) of his residential estate.
DO’s Response
4. DO attributed the incident to the lack of understanding of the BMO on the part of
the MC and the management company and so explained the provisions to them. DO also
informed the complainant that while the Home Affairs Bureau is the Authority for the BMO,
the decision whether or not to prosecute rests with the Department of Justice (“DoJ”).
HAD’s Delay
5. The complainant asked DO on 9 May 2005 whether the Authority would take legal
action against the MC Secretary. However, it was not until the end of December 2005 that
HAD consulted DoJ and then wrote to the complainant in May 2006 that DoJ had advised
against prosecution.
Our Suggestion
7. HAD should instruct staff to follow up complaints actively and, if legal advice is
required, consult DoJ as soon as possible. In addition, HAD should explain the proper
procedures clearly to complainants.
A case of delay
The Complaint
The complainant, an indigenous villager of Village A, wrote to the local District
Office (“DO”) under HAD in March 2005 for help in re-allocating to Village A a burial ground
(“Ground B”) , which he claimed to have been a traditional burial site for the village. He also
asked DO for a copy of the full minutes of a 1983 meeting on burial policy. He copied the
letter to a District Lands Office (“DLO”) under Lands D.
2. Allegedly, neither office replied to his letter and DO did not give him the full minutes
requested.
6. Meanwhile, DO and DLO debated repeatedly over which department should handle
applications for relocation and extension of existing burial grounds and which should follow
up the complainant’s request. However, no agreement was reached.
Privacy Protection
7. As for the minutes of the meeting, DO in fact had sent the complainant an extract of
those parts relating to Village A. This was to protect the privacy of other parties.
Our Comments
9. As regards the complainant’s request for the minutes of the 1983 meeting, we
considered it appropriate for DO to send him only the relevant extract for privacy protection
reasons.
The Complaint
2. The role of DO was to refer such applications to DLO for consideration. We noted
that DO had duly advised the complainant to seek approval from DLO. As social welfare
bodies and their services were not within HAD’s purview, DO was not in a position to give
policy support to the application. There was, therefore, no maladministration on HAD’s
part.
3. DLO claimed that its staff had informed the complainant during a telephone
conversation that STTs at nominal rent might be granted to non-profit-making bodies
subject to support from the appropriate policy bureau. This was contrary to the
complainant’s allegation. In the absence of independent evidence, we could not draw any
conclusion.
4. Lands D explained that DLO had in fact consulted the Social Welfare Department
(“SWD”), as the complainant’s application concerned the latter’s policy bureau, the Health,
Welfare and Food Bureau (“HWFB”). However, since SWD did not support the application,
DLO had to reject it.
5. SWD advised this Office that DLO had indicated that the proposed direction signs
were for guiding the public to the village. As the application was apparently not welfare-
related, it replied to DLO that it had no comments. Since then, SWD had not received any
further enquiries on the matter.
6. However, the DLO staff member concerned claimed that he had clearly explained
to SWD that the signs were for directing the public to a welfare unit. Furthermore,
after receiving SWD’s reply, he had called SWD to reiterate the purpose of the signs,
emphasising that the application could not be processed without SWD support. There was,
however, no record of his action above.
Conclusion
Latest Development
8. SWD has re-examined this case and HWFB given policy support to the grant of an
STT at nominal rent to the complainant.
Prapiroon swept through the territory during 1-4 August 2006 and the highest
warning signal then issued was Strong Wind Signal No. 3. The complainants, however,
maintained that Signal No. 8 should have been hoisted because many areas experienced
gale force wind. They also considered the current tropical cyclone warning signals system
inflexible and outdated as it only took into account the wind speeds in areas on both sides
of the Victoria Harbour but not those in other areas. Furthermore, HKO even withheld
information about the track of Prapiroon in order to avoid an impact on the economy.
2. Tropical cyclone warning signals are issued to alert the public to the impending threat
a tropical cyclone may pose to the territory. Real time or expected sustained wind speed
in the Victoria Harbour is used as the criterion when deciding whether Signal No. 3 or No. 8
should be issued. Wind speed outside the Harbour area is not part of this criterion.
3. HKO maintained that, given the complex features of the Hong Kong terrain, no single
location can speak for all areas of the territory in terms of wind speed and direction. Since
the areas on both sides of the Victoria Harbour have long been the centre of social and
economic activities in Hong Kong, the wind speed there is used as an objective index for
the system.
4. Data collected by HKO on 3 August showed that the ten-minute mean wind speed
in the Harbour area hovered below 50 kilometres per hour for the whole day. This was way
below gale force.
5. Whenever a tropical cyclone sweeps through Hong Kong, HKO will conduct
internal review of the signals system and its operation. Public feedback will be taken into
consideration. A public opinion survey conducted in 2003 showed that over 94% of the
respondents considered the system to satisfy their needs. At the end of that year, an HKO
review concluded that the wind speed in the Victoria Harbour should remain as the criterion
for issuing Signal No. 3 or No. 8.
6. HKO has enhanced weather information services via different channels so that
the public may have a better idea of the weather condition including wind speeds and
directions in their districts.
7. HKO considered it unfair for the complainants to compare the actual data collected
after the typhoon with its meteorological forecast and thereby comment that it had “withheld
information about the track of Prapiroon”. The Department stressed that the warning
signals had been issued according to established criteria and procedures. The “impact on
the economy” was not a consideration.
Our Comments
8. HKO has from time to time reviewed the signals system and its operation. We found
no evidence that the Department was too rigid or the system outdated.
9. In view of the inadequacy of the single numerical warning signals system in reflecting
different wind speeds in different areas when a typhoon strikes, this Office considered that
HKO should take into account public opinions when reviewing the system. It should also
step up publicity to enhance public understanding of the different warning signals. When
higher wind speeds in individual districts are forecast or detected, HKO should disseminate
the information promptly to enable residents in those districts to take appropriate
precautions.
In April 2004, the complainant was injured when she tripped over some bolt heads
protruding from the ground in the shopping area of a public housing estate. She alleged
that the bolt heads had been left there after HD’s removal of a litter bin several years ago.
Her daughter, therefore, complained to HD and sought compensation on her behalf in
mid-May.
2. HD referred the case to the loss adjuster (“LA”) of its insurer for assessment of the
Department’s public liability for the incident. LA wrote to the complainant in early January
2005 that HD had no legal liability and, therefore, need not pay any compensation. HD
also claimed having no record of installing or removing a rubbish bin at the location and no
knowledge of the bolt heads being there.
4. The Hong Kong Housing Authority has ultimate responsibility for the proper
management of its property, including the shopping area in question. As its executive arm,
HD should not shrug off its liability for the accident. Nevertheless, this Office would not
comment on the complainant’s claim for compensation as it is outside our jurisdiction.
6. We noted that the Councillor had subsequently informed the complainant of LA’s
reply.
The Complaint
The complainants alleged that a District Lands Office (“DLO”) under Lands D had
revoked their Government Land Licence without reasonable notice.
Complainants’ Misdoings
3. DLO then wrote to the complainants requesting entry for a site inspection, or it
would revoke the Licence by giving three months’ notice. The complainants asked for
postponement of the inspection. DLO did not accede, as it had made similar requests
many times but to no avail.
4. However, on the scheduled date, DLO staff were still denied access to the site.
Inspection in the vicinity confirmed the continuing existence of the UBW. DLO, therefore,
revoked the Licence by serving the complainants three months’ notice. They were also
required to clear the site.
6. Eventually, the complainants cleared the site and asked DLO to re-issue the Licence.
Both parties agreed to discuss terms.
Our Comments
7. It is clear that DLO had acted reasonably. In fact, it had shown great tolerance for
three years before revoking the Licence.
Assessment Procedures
2. Ten stalls offering different arts services such as painting, photography, Chinese
calligraphy, portrait sketching and traditional Chinese folk art at the Arts Corner were open
to application. Interested individuals and subvented non-governmental organisations could
submit an application form together with credentials of expertise and samples of art works
to the park’s Management Office during a specified period. The application would then
be sent to a six-member vetting panel (“Panel”) comprising District Councillors and LCSD
representatives for assessment.
3. The Panel would assess applications according to the nature and variety of the
proposed service, as well as the standard and popular appeal of their samples. The ten
applicants with the highest scores would each be allocated a stall at the Arts Corner for 12
months. Stalls for those with the same score were determined by drawing lots.
4. Whilst the Panel members were different for each phase of the Arts Corner,
applications would be assessed according to established criteria and all artistic forms
considered on an equal footing. On the other hand, LCSD did not require that one
application must be chosen for each and every variety. Emphasis would be placed on the
standard of the service and works of art to be provided. Discrimination against traditional
Chinese culture was thus out of the question.
No Unfairness Observed
was no stall offering Chinese calligraphy service in that phase, two applications offering
traditional Chinese folk art had been chosen. So, the Panel did not discriminate against
Chinese culture.
Improvement Introduced
7. Meanwhile, LCSD had reviewed and improved the procedures for handling
applications for stalls at the Arts Corner. A revised brochure setting out clearly the
assessment criteria and composition of the Panel would be given to applicants in future.
The Complaint
The complainant alleged that there was no partition between the smoking and
no smoking areas in the departure concourse of a ferry terminal. Separate ventilation
systems were not in place either, resulting in his being forced to be a passive smoker. He
complained against MD for poor management of the terminal.
2. The terminal, opened in the 1980s, was not among the no smoking areas designated
by law at that time. Following a legislative amendment in the 1990s, seven smoking areas
were set up there. In 2003, MD reviewed the no smoking arrangements in all ferry terminals
and reduced the number of smoking areas in the said terminal to five. However, due to
architectural constraints, three of them were not enclosed. MD staff patrolled the departure
lounge regularly. Moreover, the Tobacco Control Office under the Department of Health
found the arrangements satisfactory.
The complainant alleged that ORO had failed to put the sale proceeds of a property
jointly owned by him and his bankrupt brother into an interest-bearing account, resulting in
his loss of interest, and that ORO staff had mishandled the case.
2. The complainant sold the property in 2000. His solicitors handed over his brother’s
50% share of the proceeds to ORO. However, contending that his brother was merely a
registered owner and had no beneficial interest in the property, the complainant requested
ORO to refund the money to him.
3. On receipt of the money, ORO saw it as belonging prima facie to the brother and,
therefore, rejected the complainant’s request. Unless the complainant could prove his
claim, ORO must act in accordance with the Bankruptcy Ordinance. This meant depositing
the money into the bankruptcy account with all interest earned accruing to public revenue,
and not the bankrupt individual’s account or estate.
4. The case was later taken over by another ORO officer who considered that the
proceeds might not constitute the bankrupt’s assets. This officer arranged for the money to
be deposited in an interest-bearing account pending resolution of the dispute between the
complainant and ORO. The proceeds were subsequently refunded to the complainant with
interest.
5. As for the alleged improper handling of the case, ORO apologised to the complainant
with a detailed explanation.
6. The Ombudsman considered the crux of the matter to be whether the money
belonged to the bankrupt person. If not, ORO would have to receive that money as a
trustee and should ultimately be returned to the rightful owner with interest. This matter
involved legal considerations and the authority of interpretation was with the court. We,
therefore, suggested that ORO seek direction from the court in cases where there was a
dispute with third parties over the status of some asset.
Allegedly, PO had allowed a stranger (“Madam A”) to use the complainant’s home
address and telephone number for renting a Post Office box (“PO box”).
Renting of PO Boxes
One-stop Service
4. In this case, the application was processed through the One-stop Service. Madam
A was accompanied by the complainant’s brother, who provided the complainant’s address
and telephone number to support the application. Upon receipt of this complaint, PO
obtained Madam A’s own correspondence address for renting the PO box.
Improvement Measures
The complainant alleged that under SFAA’s Non-means Tested Loan Scheme,
applicants who had to pay their tuition fees in foreign currency were required to make the
payments first. This caused hardship to applicants with financial difficulties.
2. SFAA explained that as the loans were valued in Hong Kong dollars, applicants who
had to pay their fees in foreign currency should pay first and then submit the bank receipt
with exchange rate(s) with an application for a loan in Hong Kong dollars. If an applicant
had financial difficulties and could provide supporting evidence, SFAA would consider the
special circumstances of the case and decide whether or not to issue a cheque for the loan
in foreign currency. However, the processing time for such applications would be longer.
3. This Office believed that SFAA was not deliberately making things difficult for
applicants paying tuition fees in foreign currency. However, SFAA should treat all applicants
equally. Requiring supporting evidence only from those applicants who could not afford
to pay the fees first would contravene the original intent of this being a “non-means
tested” scheme. As such applications are more complicated and processing is more
time-consuming, this Office suggested that SFAA set a longer lead-time, charge a higher
administrative fee and deploy more staff to process applications during peak periods.
Meanwhile, SFAA should discuss with departments concerned to streamline the work
procedures.
4. SFAA accepted our suggestions and expected to accept officially loan applications
requesting the issue of cheques in foreign currency from August 2007.
The Complaint
Since 2004, the complainant had repeatedly telephoned TD to report the operation
of illegal residential coach service in a private residential estate. However, he saw no
improvement and TD never informed him of progress.
TD’s Strategy
3. TD’s investigation confirmed that the operator in question had only had a short-term
“Contract Hire Service” licence and such service must be free. As it was found collecting
fares from individual passengers, the coach service was illegal.
4. In fact, TD had identified, and issued warning letters to, more than one unauthorised
coach service operators in the estate concerned. However, three of the operators had
ignored the warnings and continued their illegal operation. TD thus decided in April 2005
to conduct inquiries against them. The inquiries were completed in December. The
Commissioner decided to either suspend or cancel the operators’ PSLs.
5. TD’s strategy was to punish illegal operators through inquiries by stopping their
operation.
6. The complainant had not disclosed his telephone number until mid-2005. Hence, TD
was at first unable to contact him. Nevertheless, the complainant called the Department
from time to time and staff informed him of the general position on all occasions.
Our Comments
7. We found TD too slow in taking action. The inquiries took more than a year to
complete after receipt of the complaint. TD could also have prosecuted repeat offenders
for stronger deterrent impact.
8. As regards its communication with the complainant, TD should have kept him posted
of the progress of its investigation without waiting to be asked.
The Complaint
Response from TD
2. TD had in fact asked the management company of the car park in a public housing
estate nearby to consider providing hourly parking spaces for motorcycles. However, the
company considered demand inadequate.
3. TD observed that utilisation of the on-street private car parking spaces in the area
was quite high. Reallocation of some spaces for motorcycles might give rise to illegal
parking of private cars and result in traffic congestion in the vicinity.
5. However, TD considered the utilisation of the on-street private car parking spaces
quite high whereas the complainant alleged it to be very low. The two statements were
contradictory. In this connection, this Office had asked TD to substantiate its claim. The
Department subsequently replied that its claim was based only on verbal reports by staff
responsible for regular inspections of the traffic condition in that area and not supported by
records.
6. In this context, this Office considered TD to be slipshod in its decision not to provide
more motorcycle parking spaces. The complainant’s allegation against TD for failing to give
him a detailed explanation was, therefore, justified.
7. As demand for on-street motorcycle parking spaces was on the increase, this Office
considered that TD should conduct comprehensive surveys to ascertain the utilisation rates
of both private car and motorcycle parking spaces in the area to decide whether some
should be reallocated for motorcycles.
WSD demanded from the complainant payment for outstanding water charges of
over $40,000 for the period October 2003 to November 2005. The complainant claimed
that the flat in question had been mostly unoccupied during that period. He had also been
there to check his mail once a month but never received any water bills.
2. He enquired with the WSD Customer Enquiry Centre but staff said that they were
responsible for claiming outstanding charges only. He then lodged a written complaint with
WSD. The Department replied that disconnection of water supply at the said premises had
been attempted twice in 2004 and 2005 but both were unsuccessful. Dissatisfied with the
Department’s explanation, he lodged a complaint with this Office.
3. According to its records, WSD had been sending water bills to the said premises
since October 2003 when the complainant had stopped paying his bills. If a consumer
failed to pay water charges, the Department’s computerised billing system would
Oversight by Staff
5. As regards its reply that staff had twice attempted disconnection but failed, WSD
admitted that it was inaccurate due to the oversight of the subject officer. When he
checked the computer system and found that disconnection had been arranged, he
simply assumed that disconnection had actually been attempted but was unsuccessful,
without finding out the real reason why water supply had not been disconnected. In fact,
disconnection had been cancelled because of the upgrading of the computerised billing
system.
Division of Responsibilities
6. As regards the complainant’s allegation that WSD staff had failed to handle his
enquiries properly, the officer concerned commented that as the incident had happened
some time ago, she could no longer recall the details. However, she maintained that she
had explained to the complainant the division of responsibilities amongst various sections in
handling water charges and suggested that he lodge a written complaint. The Department
was of the view that as the case involved the billing for water consumption for several
years, it was impossible for the staff to provide a detailed reply on the spot. Nevertheless,
she had rendered him appropriate explanation and assistance.
8. The billing system had in fact arranged disconnection in December 2004 but it was
cancelled due to the upgrading of the system. Otherwise, the water supply would have
been disconnected in time and the complainant would be liable for only several hundred
dollars of water charges.
9. WSD had twice withheld its disconnection action. This would increase the
complainant’s liability if he had nothing to do with the water consumption during the
relevant period. The officer concerned had obviously failed to take note of this, resulting
in providing wrong information to the complainant. It was indeed careless of the subject
officer.
10. This Office suggested that if any drastic increases in water consumption is
detected, the Department must take the initiative to investigate besides following the
normal procedures so that the problem could be resolved promptly. On the other hand,
if a consumer moved away from his residence, he should notify WSD quickly so that
arrangement could be duly made to close his account.
11. As for the complainant’s allegation that the staff had failed to handle his enquiries
properly, since the complainant could not provide further particulars, this Office could not
draw any conclusion in the absence of independence evidence.
The complainant claimed that FEHD had set up an animal carcass collection point
in front of his residence five years ago without prior consultation. Worried about its impact
on health, he complained to a District Environmental Hygiene Office of the Department.
However, he found the staff there indolent and the problem persisted for years.
2. This Office suggested resolving the matter by mediation and both parties agreed.
Agreement Reached
4. After a candid exchange of views, the two parties had a better mutual understanding.
Agreement was reached on the implementation of improvement measures.
The complainant alleged that some people had taken their dogs to a local sitting-out
area at night to run around and play there, creating noise and hygiene nuisance. Although
he had requested LCSD to display a “No dogs allowed” notice in the sitting-out area, the
Department posted such notices only on the pillars of a pavilion. Considering these notices
ineffective in drawing the attention of dog owners, he expressed his views to LCSD but
received no reply.
2. As the case involved no grave maladministration, this Office suggested resolving the
matter by mediation. Both parties agreed.
Agreement Reached
4. After a candid exchange of views, the two parties reached an agreement. LCSD
representatives undertook to advise dog owners to minimise their noise and undertook to
display an extra “No dogs allowed” notice at the location suggested by the complainant.
They would also request the Police to follow up the noise and hygiene nuisance created
by dogs playing there. The complainant accepted the Department's explanation and
arrangements.
Buildings Department
2005/1403 Failing to handle properly three separate incidents Partially
of fallen scaffolding and trees happening almost substantiated*
simultaneously in Kowloon, which resulted in massive
traffic congestion on three trunk roads
Highways Department
2005/1404 Failing to handle properly three separate incidents Unsubstantiated
of fallen scaffolding and trees happening almost
simultaneously in Kowloon, which resulted in massive
traffic congestion on three trunk roads
Hospital Authority
2006/0445 Unreasonably requiring the complainant to attend Unsubstantiated*
a hearing test despite previous confirmation of his
deafness by a doctor in respect of his application for
Disability Allowance
Housing Department
2005/1967 Ineffective enforcement action taken against the Partially
operation of an unlicensed barbecue restaurant substantiated
Immigration Department
2005/2727 (a) Rejecting the complainant’s request to claim his Substantiated
lost identity card and asking him to apply and pay other than
for a replacement; and alleged
(b) Poor staff attitude
Labour Department
2006/1807 I m p r o p r i e t y i n h a n d l i n g t h e c o m p l a i n a n t ’s Substantiated*
compensation case.
Lands Department
2005/1966 Ineffective enforcement action against the operation Unsubstantiated*
of an unlicensed barbecue restaurant
Marine Department
2006/2741 Failing to stop a metal trading company from dropping Unsubstantiated
scraps into the sea during transit, and to take action
to remove the scraps accumulated on the seabed
Post Office
2006/0549 Failing to reply to the complainant’s request for a Substantiated*
certified non-delivery record of a registered mail
Transport Department
2005/1402 Failing to handle properly three separate incidents Partially
of fallen scaffolding and trees happening almost substantiated*
simultaneously in Kowloon, which resulted in massive
traffic congestion on three trunk roads
Owner of a village site, the complainant claimed that some years ago the enclosing
wall on the site had been set back three feet by the former owner to enable Government
to build an access road for the villagers. However, allegedly, during a field survey for
relocating a village light, a staff member of the local District Office (“DO”) under HAD stated
that the area outside the wall was Government land.
2. The complainant then complained repeatedly to DO, which wrote back to clarify
that the staff member was referring to another piece of land and that any queries on the
boundary of the complainant’s site could be directed to the local District Lands Office
(“DLO”) under Lands D.
DO’s Delay
4. Although DO responded to all the complainant’s queries, it had taken more than four
months to check the records and to reply substantively. This was an unreasonably long
time. The complaint against HAD was, therefore, partially substantiated.
5. HAD and DO have instructed the staff concerned to handle such matters more
expeditiously in future.
6. Lands D had, in fact, never received any application for excavation permit for the
relocation of the village light. It was, therefore, not involved. The complaint against Lands
D was thus unsubstantiated.
Hy D’s Negligence
7. After Hy D had decided on the new location of the village light, its contractor
proposed to run the cable from another village light underground through unleased
Government land. With delegated authority from Lands D, Hy D exempted the contractor
from applying for an excavation permit. However, Hy D staff did not check the land status
and part of the cable was in fact laid outside the enclosing wall but within the complainant’s
site.
9. As the incident had been caused by staff negligence, the complaint against Hy D
was substantiated.
10. The Department has reminded staff to adhere to its “Village Lighting Procedures”
and written to alert contractors to land status in villages.
12. DLO still could not clarify with him the boundary of his lot. As the reinstatement of
the cable trench has been put on hold pending DLO’s confirmation of the complainant’s
site boundary, this Office urged Lands D and Hy D to follow up the issue actively with the
complainant.
The Complaint
2. Before expiry of the grant period, the complainant requested renewal of the
applicant’s DA. SWD again referred the applicant for assessment at the general clinic. This
time, another doctor did not conduct an assessment but referred him to an HA specialist
clinic instead. There, the applicant was told to attend a hearing test more than 16 months
after the expiry of the grant period.
3. The complainant criticised SWD and HA for their lack of coordination over the
applicant’s renewal of DA.
Assessment Procedures
SWD’s Explanation
5. When the applicant first applied for DA at a Social Security Field Unit, there was
no record that he had had treatment at any specialist clinic or that he was applying for
DA on grounds of deafness. Hence, the staff member referred him to a general clinic for
a general assessment. The doctor at the general clinic then recommended granting DA
to the applicant for six months on grounds of deafness. The Field Unit made the grant
accordingly.
6. SWD pointed out that DA cases were normally brought up for review 40 days before
the expiry of the grant period. However, in this case, the complainant had asked for an
earlier assessment. In view of his age (84) and the lack of any medical follow-up at the
time, SWD made a special arrangement for him to visit the general clinic again.
HA’s Explanation
8. When the applicant visited the general clinic for the first time, the doctor was not
aware of such requirement and, therefore, assessed and certified him as deaf.
9. During the applicant’s second visit to the general clinic, another doctor, aware of the
requirement, referred him to a specialist ENT clinic for assessment. Due to the huge public
demand and the relatively low priority of the applicant’s case, a hearing test was scheduled
more than a year later.
Our Comments
10. It was reasonable for HA to require all applicants for DA for profound deafness to
have a proper hearing test. Consequently, the assessment of the doctor at the general
clinic without such a test could not be taken as confirmation that the applicant was
suffering from profound deafness.
11. In this light, we considered complaint point (a) in itself unsubstantiated. However,
the certification of deafness and recommendation for DA by the first doctor at the general
clinic without regard to proper procedures constituted an act of maladministration.
12. As regards complaint point (b), the staff member might be excused for the first
referral to a general clinic, as he might be uncertain about the applicant’s ailment.
However, it was clearly not in keeping with the SWD Manual for the Field Unit to accept the
assessment of deafness by the general clinic doctor, instead of an ENT doctor, and to grant
DA to the applicant based solely on such assessment.
13. With the second referral, the staff member should have been quite clear that the
applicant was seeking renewal of his DA on grounds of deafness and referred him direct
to the specialist clinic for assessment, not to the general clinic again. There could be no
excuse for this error. Complaint point (b) was, therefore, substantiated.
Recommendation
15. The Ombudsman recommended that HA and SWD remind staff of the established
procedures to avoid recurrence of similar incidents.
The Complaint
The complainant used to live in a public housing unit with her husband and son.
After divorce, she was granted custody of her son and tenancy of the unit. Nevertheless,
her ex-husband refused to move out. She complained that HD had delayed recovering the
unit for her.
Housing Policy
2. According to housing policy, divorced tenants will not be offered an extra housing
unit. If they cannot reach agreement, the Department will normally grant the tenancy to the
party having custody of their children.
3. In this case, HD had written and telephoned the ex-husband many times to arrange
an interview but in vain. He only stated that he could not reapply for public housing
because his income exceeded the limit. At the same time, he was unwilling to move out
because of his alleged financial difficulty. At his request, HD referred his case to a social
welfare organisation. After assessment, the organisation considered compassionate
rehousing not justified.
4. HD notified him of the result and tried to make another appointment for interview.
Again, he did not respond. The Department eventually issued him a Notice of Termination
of Tenancy and a Notice to Quit. He then lodged an appeal. As the hearing would take
some time, HD allotted another unit to the complainant.
Our Comments
6. This Office considered that HD, having granted the tenancy of the unit to the
complainant according to its policy, should have recovered the unit promptly from the
ex-husband so that the complainant and her son would not be left homeless. If the
ex-husband was in difficulty, HD could help him by offering interim housing for one year.
Referral of his case to a social welfare organisation had served no purpose.
(b) formulate specific guidelines to set a time limit for frontline staff for arranging
interviews with and issuing Notices to Quit to out-going tenants.
The Complaints
In September 2004, the complainants (two event organisers) separately applied for
short-term use of a Government site in April and October 2005. HPLB replied in October
2004 that short-term use of the site was being considered and that the Lands Department
(“Lands D”) would invite tenders by the end of 2004 or early 2005. The event organisers
could then submit their bids.
2. Since then, they had not seen any invitation for tenders, but another event organiser
(“Company A”) was found to advertise in April 2005 a function to be held at that very site
in October 2005. The complainants raised the issue with HPLB in April and May 2005 for
clarification of the tender procedures. HPLB vaguely replied to one of them that some time
slots in the latter half of 2005 were still available and advised the complainant to contact
Lands D direct. The Bureau did not respond to further enquiries from the two complainants.
3. Against this background, the complainants complained to this Office against HPLB
for mishandling their applications.
4. The site had been managed by Lands D since March 2003. In November 2003,
HPLB was tasked to identify suitable short-term uses for the site in consultation with the
Commerce, Industry and Technology Bureau (“CITB”) and another bureau.
5. In September 2004, with policy support from CITB, Lands D decided to grant the site
to a certain statutory body on a short-term tenancy (“STT”) for April and October for three
years from 2005 to 2007. Separately, Lands D would consider tendering for a principal
tenant to use the site on STT outside of those two slots for three years.
6. On 11 October 2004, CITB confirmed in writing to Lands D with copy to HPLB the
exact dates when the statutory body would use the site in April and October in each of the
three years 2005 to 2007. In this connection, CITB made a media announcement on the
following day.
7. Despite having received CITB’s information, HPLB replied to one of the complainants
on 12 October 2004 that Lands D would invite tenders later. Moreover, it did not mention
that the April and October slots had already been taken.
8. HPLB explained to this Office that its reply to the complainants had been issued
before CITB’s media announcement that same day. With hindsight, the Bureau agreed that
it should have mentioned Lands D’s prior allocation of the two time slots.
9. As regards Company A’s use of the site (paragraph 2), HPLB stated that the
company’s application had preceded those of the two complainants. As it would be
improper to disclose information of one applicant to another, the Bureau did not mention
this prior application to the complainants.
Subletting Arrangements
10. The STT allowed the statutory body to sublet to a specified company, viz. “Company
A”, for a certain purpose during some specified periods and this company was permitted to
further sublet to others. In this context, HPLB argued that the shared use of the site by the
statutory body and Company A was legitimate.
11. This Office considered that HPLB had ample opportunities to inform the complainants
of the results of their applications and the real situation. This was a straightforward matter
of facts. There was no excuse for HPLB not to be open and simply advise the complainants
that the slots requested were not available.
12. Furthermore, even though CITB had made a media announcement, it was no excuse
for HPLB not to answer the complainants’ queries with the full facts. The Administration
has been promoting transparency and openness with the public by giving clear, full and
factual answers to enquiries. HPLB should have replied to the complainants earlier and
more clearly. There was no excuse for delay or incomplete information in reply.
13. We accepted HPLB not disclosing specific information about another applicant.
However, it should have been possible, without any mention of Company A, to advise the
complainants from the outset that the slots sought were not available and that the site was
subject to subletting.
Conclusion
14. HPLB’s handling of the matter had fallen short of reasonable public expectations
of an open, transparent and responsible government. Against this background, The
Ombudsman considered the complaints substantiated.
Recommendations
15. The Ombudsman recommended that the Secretary for Housing, Planning and Lands:
(a) apologise in writing to the complainants for the delay in reply and the inconvenience
caused; and
(b) remind staff of the need to give timely replies with accurate and adequate
information to public enquiries and applications.
16. HPLB appreciated our findings and has implemented our recommendations.
17. On the issue of subletting, HPLB has further explained that subletting to Company
A had been specified in the STT because the company had applied to Government to use
the site for a major exhibition beneficial to the trade and the exhibition industry. For this
reason, it had gained CITB’s policy support.
18. We consider it reasonable for a statutory body promoting Hong Kong’s economic
development to be granted an STT without recourse to tender. We could also understand
the need for subletting for an exhibition on a mega scale.
19. However, we do not accept HPLB’s explanation for stipulating in the STT an
arrangement of subletting to a single specified company. This unusual arrangement
was tantamount to the award of an STT to a commercial company, bypassing the normal
tendering requirements. There must be many other companies also capable of organising
such exhibitions and they should have been given an equal opportunity to bid. HPLB’s
decision was, therefore, grossly unfair.
The Complaint
The complainant lost his identity card (“ID card”) in a shop and later learned that
the shopkeeper had mailed it to Imm D. He telephoned the Department to claim his card.
However, an officer replied that the law requires ID cards returned to be destroyed and
holders to apply for a replacement at a fee of $395. Allegedly, another officer also refused
to consider his student status and financial difficulty.
2. The complainant considered the refusal unreasonable and the officer’s attitude poor.
3. The latter officer had in fact telephoned the complainant to elaborate on the
requirements in relation to the loss of ID cards, indicating that holders were required to
report such loss to a registration officer within 14 days and apply for a replacement. The
statutory fee for replacement was $395 and the Department had no authority for waiver. As
the complainant was a student and could not afford the fee, the officer advised him to raise
the matter with his parents. However, he did not accept the explanation or suggestion.
Subsequently, the Department wrote back to the complainant to explain the law, informing
him that it had not received his lost ID card and that he should apply for a replacement as
soon as possible.
4. Later, Imm D received a batch of ID cards returned through the Post Office, including
the complainant’s. In view of his persistence, the Department returned the card to him.
5. On complaint (a), this Office considered it proper for the Imm D staff to inform the
complainant of the relevant requirements on learning that he had lost his ID card. Although
the complainant was a student and expressed difficulty in paying the fee, the Department
was not authorised to waive it. It was, therefore, reasonable and appropriate for the officer
concerned to advise him to discuss the matter with his parents.
6. As regards complaint (b), the officer denied having been impolite but indicated that
the complainant had in fact reproached her vehemently. In view of their different accounts
of the incident, we were unable to make a conclusive judgement without independent
evidence. However, we believe that public officers should always serve members of the
public with courtesy and that clients should also mind their manners when served.
Conclusion
9. We pointed this out and Imm D admitted that such arrangement was improper. It
would stop such practice immediately.
10. In this light, The Ombudsman considered the case substantiated other than alleged.
The Complaint
The complainant alleged that a District Lands Office (“DLO”) under Lands D had
been lax in enforcement action and failed to curb illegal earth filling at a Government site
and the ensuing problems.
2. According to the records, when DLO detected the illegal earth filling, it was near
completion. Reinstatement then was not feasible as it would affect the stability of the
adjacent land and village houses. However, DLO took steps to prevent deterioration.
3. The private land adjacent to the subject site was leased for village house purposes
and DLO had to conduct regular inspections. As the filling had been substantial and could
not have been completed within a short time, DLO could have detected and curbed it.
Complaint (a), therefore, was partially substantiated.
4. The filling covered the drainage channels on a nearby slope managed by the
Highways Department (“Hy D”). DLO had notified Hy D to handle the drainage problems.
It had also conducted several site visits and liaised with relevant departments on those
problems. They had jointly explored various improvement measures and eventually
requested owners of the adjacent private land to submit a site formation and drainage
plan to solve the problems completely. This part of complaint (b) was, therefore,
unsubstantiated.
5. After discussion with the complainant, DLO had thrice installed bollards to prevent
vehicles from entering or parking at the filled area. However, facing strong protest from the
village representative, DLO allowed the contractor to remove some of the bollards.
6. The Geotechnical Engineering Office pointed out that for soil stability and pedestrian
safety, no parking should be allowed there. Accordingly, this Office considered that DLO
should promptly erect additional bollards to stop vehicular ingress, instead of continuing to
succumb to unreasonable protest. This part of complaint (b) was, therefore, substantiated.
7. After a site visit with the complainant, DLO had informed him in writing of the
situation and also kept in touch with him by telephone. Subsequently, DLO visited the site
again with him. The complainant had also been invited to attend an inter-departmental
meeting on possible solutions to the problems. As DLO had indeed kept the complainant
well posted, complaint (c) was unsubstantiated.
(a) Lands D review DLO’s scheduling of site inspections to ensure early detection of
irregularities;
(b) DLO promptly erect additional bollards to stop vehicular ingress into the site; and
(c) DLO continue to liaise with departments concerned in monitoring the site
formation and drainage works there.
The complainant found some people often playing unicycle hockey in a LCSD
roller skating rink. She had been to the rink thrice within eight days and found unicycle
hockey playing each time. Although she had complained to LCSD each time, the problem
persisted.
Prosecution Unnecessary
2. Upon receipt of the complaint, the Government Integrated Call Centre (“ICC”)
referred it to LCSD the next day. LCSD staff went to the rink several times to stop the
unicycle hockey players. However, the Department considered prosecution not necessary
because the players used the rink when there was no priority user and they stopped their
activity upon advice. In brief, they had not obstructed or disturbed other users.
LCSD’s Action
3. LCSD advised these unicycle hockey players to apply for non-designated use of
the rink. Since the utilisation rate of the rink was low, the Department approved their
application and permitted them to play in the rink at specified time slots.
4. In this connection, LCSD inspected the rink more frequently. The booking charts of
the rink for the current three months were posted prominently on a notice board nearby for
public information.
5. The Department considered the staff involved to have taken into account the needs
of different users and followed up the complaint promptly. It also considered the existing
mechanism and arrangements adequate to deal with similar incidents.
7. LCSD had obviously failed to solve the problem. The complainant had to complain
repeatedly and eventually went to another rink for roller skating. The Ombudsman,
therefore, considered this complaint substantiated.
Our Recommendations
8. The Ombudsman recommended LCSD to:
(c) apart from posting the booking charts of the rink for the current three months
prominently, provide contact, for day and night, with LCSD’s local district office;
(d) inform ICC to classify such complaints as urgent cases and refer them to LCSD
immediately for action; and
(e) liaise with the complainant to see if she would like to use the rink again, and offer
her assistance if necessary.
Final Remarks
10. The Ombudsman, nevertheless, maintained that LCSD should review the operational
arrangements with ICC on referral of complaints.
The Complaint
On 2 October 2005, the complainant called SWD and requested its staff to visit and
assist a frail and elderly neighbour Mr A, who lived alone. On the same day, SWD referred
the case to a subvented social welfare organisation (“Organisation B”) for follow-up.
3. To his dismay, the complainant learned on 25 October that Mr A had died a few days
ago. He then informed Organisation B.
4. The complainant complained to this Office that SWD had failed to ensure the
provision of due care by Organisation B to the needy.
5. According to the procedures then, upon receiving a call for assistance, SWD would
refer the case to a social welfare organisation within 24 hours. If there was no response
within five working days, the Department would fax the referral form again and follow up by
telephone. For cases requiring immediate outreach service, SWD would mark “urgent” on
the referral form to remind the organisation to take action as soon as possible.
8. As SWD had not classified the case as “urgent”, staff of Organisation B put the form
aside. The case worker did not contact the complainant within five working days according
to the organisation’s procedures.
9. Organisation B’s “Procedures for Handling Case Referrals” did not remind staff to
be particularly alert to cases of frail and elderly clients living alone. The case worker had
not assessed the need for immediate service to Mr A. He handled the case inflexibly by
insisting on obtaining his consent before visiting him.
10. Subsequently, SWD advised Organisation B to review and improve its guidelines.
The organisation accepted the advice and also issued a warning to the case worker.
Our Comments
11. This Office noted that SWD had referred the case promptly to Organisation B and
its procedures and measures were reasonable. It was basically Organisation B which had
mishandled the case and was deficient in its procedures.
12. In this light, The Ombudsman considered the complaint against SWD
unsubstantiated.
(a) in line with Organisation B’s revised “Procedures for Handling Case Referrals”,
classify priority cases according to their nature and, during referral, remind the
organisation concerned of the urgency of individual cases; and
(b) advise all other subvented organisations to formulate similar procedures for
handling case referrals.
The Complaint
The complainant operated a kaito (local) ferry service between two outlying islands.
He wrote to TD in May 2005 and March 2006 requesting construction of a public pier
to ensure passenger safety and to save his expenses on renting a private pier. He was
informed that CEDD was following up. However, he did not receive any response except
a simple interim reply from TD at the end of March 2006. He alleged that TD and CEDD
had shirked their responsibilities and delayed responding to his request. Moreover, TD had
disclosed his request to the owner of the private pier without his consent.
Division of Responsibilities
2. Before 2006, TD’s and CEDD’s responsibilities in these matters were unclear. TD
was mainly responsible for regulating kaito services and CEDD for constructing public
marine facilities.
TD Shirked Responsibility
4. The complainant made his request first to TD. While the division of departmental
responsibilities was then unclear, it would be reasonable to expect TD to have acted as
a coordinator, examined this issue with other relevant departments and consolidated a
reply to the complainant. It is improper of TD just to ask CEDD repeatedly to reply to the
complainant, thereby confusing him with incomplete replies.
5. It was only after February 2006 when the new guidelines had been promulgated that
TD actively liaised with other relevant departments, the owner of the private pier and the
complainant to seek a solution to his problems.
7. TD’s first referral in May 2005 did not reach CEDD because of wrong fax number.
Upon receipt of TD’s second referral in July, CEDD promptly replied that it had no plan to
construct a new pier as the private pier was in service. Its position was clear. CEDD had,
therefore, fulfilled its duty.
TD Denied Disclosure
9. TD denied having disclosed the complainant’s request to the owner of the private
pier. It explained that it had merely enquired of the latter about the condition of the pier. In
the absence of independent evidence, we could not make a judgement on the complainant’s
allegation.
Conclusion
Recommendations
The complainant, an engineering company, was aggrieved over the short time
allowed for:
(a) responding to VTC’s invitation to tender for one lot (four items) of bakery
workshop equipment; and
It was alleged that VTC might have had some understanding with a specific supplier
(“Company K”) prior to the tender exercise.
Stringent Timing
2. The equipment was urgently required for the Open Day and anniversary celebrations
of a VTC Institute of Vocational Education. VTC invited 11 suppliers to tender, with the
tender period cut under proper authority from five to three working days due to urgency.
However, the tight timetable for tender closing and equipment delivery resulted in most
bidders being unable to bid. This created a favourable environment for one single supplier,
Company K, known to have the stock during a visit by campus staff earlier.
(a) the first, submitted before tender closing, did not include quotation for one item
(a spiral mixer) and offered delivery of another item (“item X”) after the timeline
specified by VTC; and
(b) the second (i.e. supplementary quotation), submitted after tender closing,
covered all items with delivery of item X amended and the spiral mixer expected
“approximately six to eight weeks”.
Non-conforming Offers
4. We noticed that Company K’s initial offer had failed to conform to the tender
specifications on the delivery of item X and had not covered the spiral mixer. Moreover,
Company K was allowed to submit a supplementary quotation even after tender closing.
5. However, Company K’s second bid still failed to comply fully with the specified
delivery date for the spiral mixer. Although VTC maintained that there had been a
supplementary verbal agreement with Company K over the timely delivery of the mixer,
this was not borne out by any records. On the contrary, VTC’s purchase order enclosing
Company K’s second bid and order confirmation consistently referred to the deferred
delivery of the spiral mixer.
6. Eventually, Company K did not deliver the spiral mixer on time. Instead, it lent a
different model of the item to the campus until the specified mixer was available.
7. Thus, the situation lent credence to the complainant’s suspicion that there had been
some prior arrangements between VTC and Company K.
Our Conclusion
8. We could not accept the tender exercise as having been conducted fairly. Company
K had indeed been given an unfair edge over other bidders with its supplementary
quotation and non-conforming offer of the spiral mixer on loan.
9. VTC’s tendering system had been compromised. Its professed urgency could have
been avoided by better planning for the events (especially for the anniversary). Alternatively,
it could have resorted to the Council’s provision of “direct purchase authority”, for waiving
competitive tendering at times of urgency.
Our Recommendations
(a) to remind staff not to breach procurement rules for expediency, or they might
face disciplinary actions; and
(b) to establish an internal audit system for random checks on tendering and
purchases to ensure proper and adequate documentation.
12. VTC maintained that the tender exercise had been conducted fairly in accordance
with its procurement rules. It challenged our conclusion, stating that it should be based
on proof beyond doubt and not speculation. It argued that the short tender closing and
delivery timelines had been set to meet VTC’s requirement to purchase from local available
stock, which the complainant did not hold. There was no change of substance in Company
K’s second bid after tender opening and the supplementary quotation in line with VTC’s
established practice of “negotiation” with bidders. Furthermore, a verbal agreement was
a valid contract: so Company K’s bid in respect of the delivery of the spiral mixer was also
conforming.
13. While admitting clerical errors and inadequate documentation at some stages of
the process, VTC considered them irrelevant to the fairness of the tender exercise.
Expert Advice
16. The focus of this complaint was procedural unfairness in the tender exercise. In this
light, The Ombudsman considered VTC improper in seeking a supplementary quotation
from Company K with substantial changes to its original bid. The Ombudsman urged VTC
to consult GLD in revising its procurement guidelines.
Panel of
Ombudsman Professional Advisers
Administration and
Investigation Division 1 Investigation Division 2
Development Division
Annex 18 Organisation Chart
Complaints
Registry
General & Personnel
Finance Registry Registry
151
Annex 19 Visits to the Office of The Ombudsman
Date Visitors*
6.6.2006 Mr Shen Deyong, Vice President of the Supreme People’s Court, China
*Excluding group visits from local schools and social service agencies
Reporting year#
(D) Complaints for processing = (B) + (C) 5,142 5,433 5,742 4,985 6,282
(E) Complaints handled and concluded 4,370 4,345 5,023 4,309 5,340
– Withdrawn/Discontinued 2 6 0 2 0
– Substantiated 15 14 31 13 15
– Partially substantiated 39 24 46 14 16
– Unsubstantiated 68 236 45 26 39
– Incapable of determination 0 1 0 0 0
By mediation 6 7 6 12 2(6)*
– Discontinued 137 57
339 328 1,071
– Withdrawn 147 164
(G) Total cases carried forward = (D) - (E) 772 1,088 719 676 942
@ From 2006/07, excluding “Complaints to others copied to us”. Please refer to the “Glossary of Terms”.
Note 1. The total number of enquiries and complaints received in Table 1 are 15,626 and 5,606 respectively. They are different
from the figures shown in Table 3 for the following reasons:
* An enquiry/complaint involving more than one organisation is shown against each of the organisation.
* Enquiries/complaints involving bodies outside The Ombudsman's jurisdiction are not shown.
Note 2. Organisations under Schedule 1 to The Ombudsman Ordinance with no enquiries/complaints received in the reporting
year are not shown.
Organisations
Outstanding
Ombudsman’s
Remedial
No. of No evidence of suggestions
Organisation action taken/ Inconclusive
complaints maladministration on systemic
suggested
improvement
Government Secretariat
Ombudsman’s
Remedial
No. of No evidence of suggestions
Organisation action taken/ Inconclusive
complaints maladministration on systemic
suggested
improvement
Note 1. Organisations under Schedule 1 to The Ombudsman Ordinance with no complaints concluded by Rendering Assistance/Clarification are
not shown.
YEAR
02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07
TIME
Processing Time for Complaints Concluded by Full Investigated and Other Modes
YEAR
02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07
TIME